Interested in more of this? Stay tuned and subscribe here for weekly updates.
On the go, multi-tasking or just prefer to listen? “Willem Hoyng’s UPC Unfiltered AI Podcast” – your weekly, AI-generated podcast discussing Willem Hoyng’s commentary on UPC case law of last week, offers a convenient alternative. Listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.
8 September 2025
Local Division Paris, KEEEX v ADOBE
Extension of time limit
Facts
This case has been filed against numerous (groups of) defendants allegedly applying a method patent (verifying the integrity of block data) in the field of AI, among which Irish and US defendants.
The defendants were served at different dates, or service was not possible because the company had moved.
The defendants asked for an extension of the time limit for their preliminary objection (“PO”) and Statement of Defence (“Defence”) of three months because of the length of the Statement of Claim (150 pages) and the numerous exhibits filed in the CMS system in a disorderly fashion.
They also argued that the Statement of Claim was unclear as to what was claimed against each defendant and cited the stakes of the case with more than 6 billion euros requested as damages.
The JR
The JR decided to align the time periods for filing a PO and the Defence, taking as a starting date the date of the latest service (4 September 2025) and granted a further extension of 4 weeks.
Comment
- The case was filed by a small French company (although the invention was made by a University) in French. However, the defendants cannot unilaterally ask for a change to English because the patent has been granted in French.
- The decision of the JR is the right one. Aligning the dates is desirable and in this exceptional case, where the English-speaking defendants are confronted with an unclear 150-pages Statement of Claim with numerous disorderly-filed exhibits and a huge damage claim, an extra month appears reasonable and fair. It also does not mean that the case cannot be decided within 14 months.
8 September 2025
Munich Central Division, TCL v Corning
Extension of time limit
Facts
In this revocation action, the claimant wanted a two-week extension for its Reply and its Defence to the application to amend the patent, and submitted all kinds of reasons for this request.
The JR
The JR refuses the extension with a solid motivation.
Comment
- Again we see representatives who do not understand that the periods mentioned in the Rules of Procedure are to be taken seriously and only in extraordinary (verifiable) circumstances will the Court grant an extension.
- The JR in this case has been a practicing lawyer for many years before becoming a judge and is not impressed by the (non-verifiable) arguments of the representatives. Every practicing lawyer knows that if something takes two months and two weeks you can certainly have it done in two months!
8 September 2025
Central Division Paris, Microsoft v Suinno
Confidentiality of lawyers’ invoices
Facts
Microsoft requested in cost proceedings that the exhibit containing the invoices of their law firm including the hours worked on the case would be treated as strictly confidential.
The Court
Cites the case law of the EU: three conditions for protection have to be fulfilled:
a) the information is only known to a limited number of people;
b) its disclosure is likely to cause serious harm to the person who provided it or to third parties;
c) the interests likely to be harmed by disclosure are objectively worthy of protection.
The Court considers that the invoices of lawyers qualify as confidential information and are also covered by the attorney-client privilege of R. 287 RoP.
Comment
- If I lose a case and I have to pay the legal costs claimed by the winner, why are these legal costs and the hours worked on the case confidential information? Can it be because it tells you something about the financial situation of the company which hired the lawyers? That is hardly convincing, as financial information is readily available. Even my own retirement BV has to publish financial data. Can it be because it reveals how important the patent is? I have hardly ever heard a client say: “Mr. Hoyng we want to start a lawsuit but the patent is not that important so please do not spend much time on it”. I have also never heard clients say: “This is an important patent so please charge higher rates and spend as much time as you like on it”. It is all very unrealistic.
On the contrary, what matters is transparency in terms of: how can you get (realistic) information on what the costs of defending a UPC case with a given law firm are; how efficient is it; do you see a high number of hours of unexperienced associates which in fact are learning while you pay for it; how is its service, etc. The best information does not come from legal guides or rankings, but from other companies who have had experience with a given law firm in UPC proceedings.
In this case I understand that neither the winner (because it himself claims confidentiality) nor the loser can disclose the information and nothing will be publicly available.
Lastly, the number of hours billed by a law firm and its invoices fall, according to this JR, under attorney-client privilege. I do not understand why. Does it mean that I, as an attorney, cannot disclose to a third party what was charged in a case and how many hours were worked on a case?
Has the UPC been created for the lawyers or for the potential users? One of the most important things for a user is finding a good representative and knowing what they can expect in terms of costs and what amount is reasonable. Again I think that if parties are willing to litigate about costs, then one of the consequences is that this normally should be accessible to the public. This is normally not likely to cause serious harm. - The Court is not willing to fix a penalty sum in case of non-compliance with the order so as to be able to assess the circumstances of the non-compliance. That seems to make sense but it means that in order to determine the penalty payments due you will have to go through extra proceedings. I do not see why the amount cannot be fixed right away especially because the defendant can always argue that what the claimant proposed as penalty is excessive. Of course, in order not to reach unreasonable sums, the Court can and should set a maximum which can be forfeited.
8 September 2025
Local Division Hamburg, Fraunhofer v HMD
Change of language
Facts
The case is filed in German. The defendant is a Finnish company which asks for a change of language to the language of the patent, i.e. to English.
The defendant points to the fact that most evidence submitted by the claimant is in English. The defendant is a non-German company which communicates with its representatives in English. Having to defend itself in German would take far more efforts and time. The defendant further pointed out that the German claimant is an internationally operating party which, before the litigation started, communicated with defendant in English.
The President of the Court in First Instance
Allows the request and orders the change of language.
Comment
- Knowing the case law of the Court of Appeal, the claimant should have known that filing in German did not make much sense, as a successful request for a change of language could be expected.
- In general, it would be better for the UPC if cases are litigated in English. It is the language which (almost) all users of the system understand and all judges master, and which can be used in all Local Divisions. The only exception which should be accepted is when both claimant and defendant are local companies, or in the very rare case that the defendant is a local company operating only locally.
- I note that the request for a change of language was only made two months after the Statement of Claim was filed. That is unnecessarily late, and if the Rules are revised it would be wise to stipulate that such request has to be made within a month. The two months are in strong contrast with the one month it took the President to take a decision (while, during that month, giving claimant 10 days to respond and consulting the Hamburg panel).
- It is known that for the overloaded German Divisions it would save time to do the cases in German but that cannot be a reason to file in German. This case is a perfect example. Why was this case not filed in the far less busy Division in Helsinki?
9 September 2025
Local Division Milan, Oerlikon v Himson
Settlement
Facts
After the oral proceedings, the parties settled the case and agreed that they both bear their own costs. They asked the Court to confirm the settlement (R. 365 RoP).
The Court
The Court rules accordingly, although I did not see a clear confirmation of the settlement in the decision which is required for applicability of R. 365 RoP (but this may be caused by an insufficient knowledge of Italian). The decision only provides that “this decision shall be recorded in the register by the Registry”.
Comment
- This case started on 12 July 2023. The oral hearing took place on 11 June 2025. Even accepting that service took place on 20 September 2023, then the oral hearing took place almost two years later. I have not seen any special reason why this took so long. The Local Division in Milan, which is certainly not overburdened with cases, thus did not have an oral hearing within 12 months after the start of the proceedings, which is not in line with the Rules of Procedure (see the Preamble) as this is one of the principles on which the UPC is founded. This is regrettable and does not aid to a better spread of cases over the different Divisions. All Divisions should do everything to keep this promise to the users: an oral hearing within 12 months and high-quality decisions 6 weeks later.
- The Court decided correctly: no return of fees when settlement occurs after the hearing (and I would add the same should apply for settlement just before the hearing).
9 September 2025
Local Division Düsseldorf, Ona v Google
(corrected and amended on 10 September 2025 – see below)
UPC_CFI_411/2024
Confidentiality order
Facts
Ona asked for a confidentiality order with respect to, inter alia, agreements with third parties containing confidentiality clauses. It also wants to prevent use of the confidential information from being used in parallel proceedings in Munich.
The JR
The JR grants the request.
Comment
- The JR does not allow the defendant (Google) to use the confidential information in parallel proceedings between the same parties regarding another patent, even though this information, according to Google, is relevant for the standing to sue.
- How is this going to work in practice? Google’s representative and two Google employees now know that Ona has documents containing relevant information for their case. They cannot produce these documents nor use this information. Can they ask the Munich Court to order Ona to produce the documents which are relevant with respect to the standing to sue?
- Assuming the answer is negative because “confidentiality” not only relates to the content of the information but also its existence (which I think would be the correct view), then it would not be acceptable in my opinion that Google loses the proceedings in Munich because it cannot use confidential information which it knows does exist.
- On the other hand, lawyers know that there are two kinds of truth: the formal truth and the material truth. The Rules of Procedure were created to try to make sure that decisions are based on the material truth.
10 September 2025
Local Division Düsseldorf, Ona v Google
UPC_CFI_100/2024; UPC_CFI_411/2024
Corrections of 9 September order
Facts
See hereabove with respect to the 9 September order.
The JR