Prof. Willem Hoyng reviews this week’s decisions with a clear warning: The UPC is front-loaded and unforgiving, and forum choice is becoming a critical strategic variable.In this episode:⚠️ Front-loading Traps (Ona v Google; Fisher v Flexicare):Too late for indirect infringement: In Ona, a late attempt to argue indirect infringement was refused. If it's not in your Statement of Claim, it's out.EPO rules don't apply: In Fisher, "subsequent" auxiliary requests were rejected. Prof. Hoyng warns representatives that they must justify amendments upfront under the strict UPC Rules of Procedure.🔹 Forum Selection (ZTE v Samsung):Key procedural decisions were deferred until after the hearing due to time constraints. Prof. Hoyng warns that overload in German divisions is a real risk—claimants should consider other divisions (Paris, Milan, The Hague) to avoid delays.🔹 The "Conditional" Cost Trap (Emboline v AorticLab):The Munich LD ordered a defendant to pay costs for a conditional revocation counterclaim, even though they succeeded on non-infringement. Prof. Hoyng calls this "wrong and unjust," as it penalizes a necessary defense.📖 Read the full analysis:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/es/noticias/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-03-2026Disclaimer: This podcast uses AI-generated voices. The commentary reflects Prof. Willem Hoyng’s personal views.#UPCUnfiltered #UnifiedPatentCourt #PatentLitigation #WillemHoyng #IPLaw #LegalStrategy

Ask this episode

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

Transcript

Related