This week, our AI hosts break down Prof. Willem Hoyng’s expert commentary on 10 new decisions from the Unified Patent Court. We are diving deep into the Court's reasoning on public access to pleadings, the jurisdictional limits of suing non-EU entities, and the evolving standards for Preliminary Injunctions and indirect infringement.In this episode, we cover:🌍 International Jurisdiction & the UK: Why the Paris Local Division found jurisdiction over Chinese entities for UK acts but drew a firm line at suing a UK-only company in BMS v BYD.🎓 "Training Purposes" as a Golden Ticket: How a law firm used the "training" justification to gain full access to redacted pleadings in a settled case between Huawei and MediaTek. ⚖️ The Indirect Infringement Debate: A deep dive into the Düsseldorf Local Division’s decision in Brita v Wessper, where filter cartridges were deemed "essential elements," sparking a debate on double territoriality and consumer rights. 🛡️ PI Resilience and Claim Interpretation: How the Court of Appeal reversed a Hague decision in Abbott v Sinocare, warning against reading limitations into claims that aren't supported by the wording or description. 📉 SME Financial Realities: Why the Court of Appeal refused suspensive effect for an SME in La Siddhi v Athena, reminding litigants that a lack of funding for security for costs isn't a "get out of jail free" card. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-16-2026🔍 Explore the case law and Unfiltered Commentary on our UPC Intelligence Platform: https://upcintelligence.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/Disclaimer: This post and the podcast are AI-generated. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related