This week at the UPC saw a series of sharp lessons on procedure and case management. The Court of Appeal confirmed a fatal, non-restorable deadline for Unitary Patent applications, while first-instance divisions cracked down on overly long defensive filings and clarified rules on security for costs and discovery.In this AI-powered episode, our digital hosts unpack Professor Willem Hoyng's expert analysis of the key decisions from Week 38, 2025.Key topics covered include:Fatal Deadline for Unitary Effect (CoA): A breakdown of the Court of Appeal's decision in Bodycap v EPO, which confirmed the EPO’s refusal of a Unitary Patent after a correction deadline was missed, holding that this time limit cannot be re-established.Overly Long Briefs (Paris LD): An analysis of a powerful case management decision in Merz v Viatris, where a judge ordered a defendant who had filed a 473-page defence to a preliminary injunction application to submit a 70-page summary.Security for Costs (Mannheim LD): A look at the court's reasoning in Total Semiconductor v TI for upholding a security for costs order against a US startup, based on factors like litigation funding and potential US enforcement difficulties.Disclosure of License Agreements (Mannheim LD): In the SEP case of Huawei v MediaTek, the court ordered a claimant to produce license agreements, confirming its power to compel the disclosure of evidence relevant to determining a FRAND rate.For a deeper dive, read Professor Hoyng's full written commentary for Week 38:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-38-2025/Disclaimer: Podcast uses AI-generated voices – minor inaccuracies may occur.

Ask this episode

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

Transcript

Related