This week, our AI hosts break down Prof. Willem Hoyng’s expert commentary on a broad set of new Unified Patent Court decisions, with a strong focus on evidence production, confidentiality, preliminary injunction practice, cost recovery, and the practical consequences of UPC case management.In this episode, we cover:⚖️ Evidence Production & Inspection Measures: Recent decisions address R. 190 RoP requests, seizure and inspection orders, and the balance between useful evidence-gathering and proportionality during ongoing litigation.🔐 Confidentiality & Access to Documents: Several cases examine confidentiality regimes, access to pleadings and evidence, attorneys’-eyes-only arrangements, and how confidential material should be handled both during and after proceedings.⏱️ PI Practice, Urgency & Burden of Proof: The week highlights the burden on PI applicants to prove infringement, the consequences of weak evidentiary support, and the Court’s approach to withdrawal and court-fee reimbursement after a likely unsuccessful PI application.🛠️ Case Management, Deadlines & Appeals: The decisions also cover hearing-date discipline, extensions, expert-hearing requests, FRAND case management, and procedural questions around review and appeal routes.📖 Read the full written analysis here: ⁠https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-20-2026⁠🔍 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