Below, Prof. Willem Hoyng provides his unfiltered views on the decisions that were published on the website of the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) last week. His comments offer a unique insight into the UPC’s case law, as he chairs the Advisory Board of the UPC and participated in drafting the Rules of Procedure of the UPC.
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.
11 August 2025
Local Division Munich, Syntorr v Arthrex
UPC_CFI_ 114/2025; UPC_CFI_358/2025
Security for costs
Facts
The defendant asks the Court to order security for a total amount of € 3.300.000. The claimant requests the Court to order no security, or to lower the amount and to allow the security to be in the term of an “anti-avoidance” insurance with a licensed EU insurer.
The JR
- announced the appointment of a Technical Judge;
- confirms the agreement on the use of visual aids during the hearing;
- informs the parties that during the oral hearing they have to discuss the points raised by the Court and will get 20-30 minutes for a closing argument;
- sets the value of the dispute;
- orders that one week before the hearing parties will give a legal cost estimate;
- states that parties are encouraged to talk (about settlement);
- sets the hearing date: 22 August 2025 at 10 a.m.
Comment
- As far as can be seen this is only an infringement case which explains the late appointment of the Technical Judge which is not an obligation in (only) an infringement case, but parties/the Court can request this. Apparently, that is what happened.
- If the Court wants to organise the hearing as indicated, it is hoped for the parties that a few days (week) before the hearing they receive the points the Court wants to discuss. Representatives should make sure that they raise all other points which they consider important as they will not be able to do that (for the first time) on appeal.
- The Court is apparently aiming at an agreement on costs so that separate proceedings are not necessary. As both counsels are Dutch and are used to try to settle costs by agreement, it is likely that clients can be spared the costs of separate cost proceedings.
12 August 2025
Local Division Düsseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Change of language
Facts
Both parties ask to change the language of the proceedings to English (the language of the patent). The JR grants the request.
Comment
That of course makes sense between two international companies. You only wonder why the German representative of a claimant, acting for a US company, started the case in German, thereby causing, we assume, quite some extra translation costs for their clients.
12 August 2025
Local Division Düsseldorf, American Wave Machines v Surftown
UPC_CFI_837/2024; UPC_CFI_349/2025; UPC_CFI_394/2025
Confidentiality
Facts
The defendant no longer objects against the natural person of claimant who gets access to the confidential information.
The JR
The JR changes the confidentiality order issued on 1 August 2025 accordingly.
Comment
A hopeful sign of a cooperative representative and party!
12 August 2025
Court of Appeal, Lionra v Cisco
Extension of term
Facts
On 19 February 2024, the Local Division Hamburg rejected Lionra’s infringement claim and Cisco’s counterclaim for revocation. Lionra appealed.
On 19 June 2025, Lionra filed its Statement of Grounds in Appeal together with a R. 262A RoP and a R.262.2 RoP request for confidentiality. On 17 July 2025, Cisco got access to the unredacted version of the Statement of Grounds.
Cisco asks for an extension for answer and cross appeal until 17 October 2025. Lionra states that one week or alternatively 10 calendar days is sufficient.
The JR
One month is too long as the confidential part of the Statement of Grounds is very small.
One week/ten days is too short because Cisco has to redo its expert report.
Decision: Cisco gets a two-weeks extension.
Comment
These representatives have not yet learned to pick up the phone, being reasonable and agree with the same result. They spent their client’s money on drafting arguments and waste the time of the Court of Appeal, forcing the Court of Appeal to draft a reasoned order.
13 August 2025
Local Division The Hague, Winnow v Orbisk
UPC_CFI_327/2024; UPC_CFI_557/2024
Decision on the merits
Facts