Catch up on this week’s key UPC rulings as our AI hosts unpack Professor Willem Hoyng’s expert analysis of the decisions from Week 45, 2025. This week was dominated by the Court of Appeal, which issued three significant procedural and substantive rulings.Highlights include:Patent Revocation Confirmed (CoA): In Seoul Viosys v expert klein, the Court of Appeal dismissed the patentee's appeal, confirming the patent's revocation for added matter. The decision provides a critical lesson on the binding nature of the filed English translation of a PCT application.PI Order Set Aside on Appeal (CoA): A look at Otec v Steros, where the CoA overturned a Preliminary Injunction granted by the Hamburg LD. The ruling found a 'clear error' in claim interpretation, serving as a major check on first-instance decisions.No Suspensive Effect for Info Order (CoA): In Blacksheep v HL Display, the Court of Appeal refused to suspend an order to provide detailed information pending appeal. It confirmed that the appeal becoming "devoid of purpose" (i.e., the information is gone) is not, by itself, an exceptional circumstance.Patent Upheld & Infringed (LD Hamburg): Analysis of a "textbook" merits decision from the Hamburg LD in Dolle v Fakro, where the court upheld a patent's validity against numerous grounds (added matter, novelty, inventive step, etc.) and found infringement.📖 Full Week 45 analysis by Prof. Hoyng:👉 https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-45-22025/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