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 46, 2025.Highlights include:Service on Chinese Defendants (LD The Hague vs. LD Düsseldorf): A detailed look at the contrasting handling of service. While the Düsseldorf Local Division accepted a 5-month delay in PI proceedings (HP v Rentmeister), the Hague Local Division moved efficiently to allow alternative service (Avient v Xingi). Prof. Hoyng provides strategic advice on utilizing Article 15(3) of the Hague Service Convention.Review of Saisie Orders (LD Brussels): Analysis of Organon v Genentech, where the court confirmed an ex parte inspection order. The ruling clarifies that an order's correctness is judged based on the facts known at the time of issuance, not the results of the seizure.Suspensive Effect Refused (CoA): The Court of Appeal reaffirms the high bar for suspending a preliminary injunction pending appeal in Lepu v Occlutech, confirming that only a "manifest error" justifies such a measure.Read the full analysis by Prof. Hoyng:https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-46-2025Disclaimer: 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