Who we are
Intellectual property is our passion.
We are driven by ideas and innovation.
We work tirelessly to protect them and help our clients changing the world around us.
HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER understands the need for an intellectual property lawyer who knows the industry at hand, is straight-talking and straight-shooting, and able to deliver. No matter what.
Our dedicated European team has more than one hundred intellectual property professionals. In the full belief there cannot be a compromise as to legal quality, we chose to dedicate our practice entirely to intellectual property and related regulatory issues. But we also have the technical background and expertise to deal with the most challenging technologies often involved in IP disputes. Our experience and pioneering mentality unite in groundbreaking cases we handle across borders.
HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER is the go-to intellectual property law firm in Europe.
Latest News
Enforcing UPC Monetary Awards in Germany: Seizure of Patent Portfolios Before the Munich District Court
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has rapidly become one of the most important venues for patent litigation in Europe. While much attention has been devoted to injunctions and damages awards, a practical question is increasingly relevant for successful claimants: how can monetary claims arising from UPC decisions be enforced against an unwilling debtor?
UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 24, 2026
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.
Find all decisions, commentary and more on our UPC Intelligence Platform.
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.
Enforcing UPC decisions in practice: from direct effect to penalties
Enforcement before the UPC starts from a simple premise: the UPC decision itself is the enforcement title. Article 82(1) UPCA provides that decisions and orders of the Court are enforceable in any Contracting Member State, without exequatur or any further domestic recognition step. The order for enforcement is appended to the decision itself. The framework around this principle of direct enforceability has been progressively developed by the Court of Appeal, notably in Sumi Agro v Syngenta (UPC_CoA_523/2024), Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva (UPC_CoA_446/2025) and Fujifilm v Kodak (UPC_CoA_699/2025). In practice, UPC enforcement raises three distinct sets of questions: the decision to enforce final decisions on the merits under Rule 118.8 RoP, the direct enforceability of provisional measures under Art. 62 UPCA, and the consequences of non-compliance under the UPC's penalty regime under Art. 82(4) UPCA.