This week, our AI hosts unpack Prof. Willem Hoyng’s analysis of the latest UPC decisions, exposing procedural excesses, inefficiencies in cost proceedings, and escalating cross-border tensions in SEP litigation.In this episode, we cover:⚖️ Procedural Discipline Under Pressure: When 150+ invalidity attacks, late filings, and massive expert reports push the Milan Local Division to its limits in Prinoth v Xelom.💸 The Cost Proceedings Dilemma: Why the Court of Appeal in Guardant v Sophia had to step in after a €600,000 cost order. 🌏 Global SEP Tug-of-War: The Mannheim Local Division takes a firm stance against anti-suit tactics in Nokia v Geely, raising big questions about jurisdictional overreach and international comity. 🌐 Jurisdiction & Fragmentation: In Dainese v Alpinestars, the Milan Local Division navigates Article 8(1) Brussels Regulation - while leaving key questions on cross-border infringement unanswered. 🧪 Revocation & Auxiliary Requests: A warning from the Paris Central Division in Huntsman v BASF - if you don’t properly argue your auxiliary requests, the Court won’t do it for you. 🏛️ Forum Shopping & UPC Strategy: The Düsseldorf Local Division in Quantificare v Canfield shows how national decisions can shape UPC outcomes - and why defendants must think carefully about jurisdiction challenges. 🔐 Security for Costs in SEP Cases: The Munich Local Division in Advanced Standard v Xiaomi confirms that bank guarantees for FRAND royalties won’t shield claimants from cost security obligations. 📖 Read the full written analysis here: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-17-2026🔍 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