Prof. Willem Hoyng reviews this week’s key decisions, focusing on cross-border jurisdiction, strict validity standards, and the importance of choosing the right venue.In this episode:🔹 Cross-Border Reach (Labs v GC Aesthetics - Brussels LD):The Court confirms jurisdiction over alleged infringements in non-UPC countries (UK, Switzerland, Spain). Prof. Hoyng warns litigators: if you don't raise a jurisdiction objection properly, the Court won't do it for you.🔹 PI Rejected (Guardant v Sophia - Paris LD):Added Matter: The Court refused a PI, ruling the patent likely invalid. It clarified that finding claim elements "scattered" across a description is not enough—the specific combination must be disclosed.Urgency: A 3-month delay in filing was accepted as reasonable for complex technology, a view Prof. Hoyng praises as "realistic."🔹 Suspensive Effect & Default Judgments (Applicant v Amycel - CoA):The Court of Appeal rejected a request to suspend a default judgment requiring the defendant to publish a ruling online. The takeaway? "Irreversible consequences" alone are not enough to stop enforcement; the decision must be "manifestly erroneous."📖 Read the full written analysis:[Link]Disclaimer: 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