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.
28 April 2025
Court of Appeal, Juul v NJOY
Stay of proceedings
Background
Juul’s patent has been revoked by the Central Division in Paris. Juul appealed and asked for a stay until the decision of the Board of Appeal in opposition proceedings.
NJOY agrees.
The Court of Appeal (“CoA”)
- The CoA refers to R. 295(a) RoP (Court can stay when a decision in opposition proceedings is given rapidly) and to R. 298 RoP (stay is possible if opposition proceedings are “accelerated”).
- The CoA refers to its decision in Carrier v Bitzer (see Hoyng, Case Law Court of Appeal of the UPC 2023-2024, p. 37).
- The CoA contacted the Board of Appeal, which stated that the hearing will be on 20 October 2025. The CoA calculated (as the grounds of appeal had not yet been lodged in the appeal proceedings) that the decision of the CoA could be expected around the same date.
- The CoA states that there are no pending infringement proceedings or other circumstances which plead against a stay; on the contrary, the patentee Juul agrees
- Stay granted.
Comment
- An important decision for representatives: the fact that parties agree does not necessarily mean that a stay is granted. That is a very important and, in my opinion, fully understandable message. The UPC promises rapid decisions, also on appeal. It is not up to only the parties to decide on stays or, for that matter, on extensions, as there is a general interest in decisions within a reasonable period. In the case of a revocation action, that is even clearer as it is an actio popularis: it is in the general interest to have certainty about which exclusive rights must be respected. The same is true, however to a lesser extent, for infringement actions which define the scope of such exclusive rights.
- In this case the decision is understandable as it is very well possible (especially as the patent has already been revoked in first instance) that a lot of double work would be done for nothing if the Board of Appeal would revoke the patent. Moreover, there are no infringement proceedings pending and parties agree.
- So, in this case, there are very clearly (exceptional) circumstances, but the general rule remains valid: in principle, no stays, not even in so-called “accelerated” opposition proceedings, which in general are not so accelerated, although the EPO is improving. As to the latter: why can the 9-month opposition term not be shortened to three months? The prosecution of a patent is fully transparent, and competitors can therefore start doing prior art searches, etc., even before the grant. So three months seems more than enough to draft a decent opposition. If the long terms for response are also shortened, then it should be possible (with enough manpower at the EPO) to truly shorten opposition proceedings. The UPC shows that it is possible with hard-working, capable judges and representatives, many of whom by now understand that extensions, etc., are something of the past!
28 April 2025
Local Division Hamburg, Nera v Xiaomi
Auxiliary requests
Facts
Xiaomi asks the Court to ignore the arguments with respect to selected auxiliary requests of the patentee in the patentee’s reply to Xiaomi’s answer to the request to amend the patent.
Xiaomi is of the opinion that these arguments were not made in the application to amend the patent. In fact, the patentee only made arguments in its reply for the first time as to why auxiliary requests 19/19A and 22/22A would be valid, which is against R. 30(b) RoP (which requires an explanation that the auxiliary requests meet the requirements for a valid patent) and against R. 32 RoP (in the reply, you can only react to what is raised in the defence).
The Judge-Rapporteur (JR)
The patentee has followed the Rules, as auxiliary requests 19/19A and 22/22A had already been filed in the request to amend the patent. In the reply, the patentee only made further explanations in reaction to the defendant’s answer.
Comment
- I think the basic problem in the case lies in the fact that the Court apparently did not apply R. 30.1 sub c RoP, which says that the number of auxiliary requests should be reasonable in number in the circumstances of the case.
- The Rule was proposed by the two UK members in the Drafting Committee, as in UK litigation, a patentee can only propose a limited number of auxiliary requests. All members in the Committee agreed that we did not want an EPO practice with numerous auxiliary requests.
- In this case, I count already 60 (and – that is not very clear – maybe far more because of combinations among them). In my view, that is not a reasonable number.
- The Court, if it allows a high number (which in my view is not in accordance with R. 30.1 sub c RoP), should then at least require, for each such request or request which is a combination of requests, strict compliance with R. 30.1(b) and not some general statements, and not create a situation where after the defendant’s defence to the application to amend, the patentee can cherry-pick one of the numerous auxiliary requests.
- In my opinion, the (early) interim conference is an excellent instrument to resolve this kind of problem, and if held immediately after the written procedure, it gives the necessary flexibility without endangering the date for oral argument.
- To avoid any misunderstanding: defending the granted claims or part of the granted claims does, in my opinion, not require an auxiliary request and an explanation why they are valid. These are all granted claims, and it is up to the defendant (the claimant in revocation proceedings) to prove their invalidity and for the patentee to show that such arguments are wrong.
28 April 2025
Local Division Milan, Ericsson v Asustek
Confidentiality Regime
Facts
Asustek filed identical requests under both R. 262A RoP and R. 262.2 RoP.
Ericsson did the same, but stated that its request concerned license agreements with competitors of Asustek and that for that reason, it wants an “external-eyes-only” regime (i.e. no employee of Asustek should see the information).
Ericsson contested Asustek’s request to name one representative of Ericsson who would be responsible for leaks by Ericsson’s legal team.
Asustek resisted an “only external eyes” regime.
The JR ordered the parties to try to come to an agreement.
Parties agreed except for the “external eyes only” regime.
The Judge-Rapporteur (JR)
- The JR followed the agreement between the parties.
- The JR referred to the decision of the CoA in Daedalus v Xiaomi (UPC_CoA_621/2024 https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/A5817509F636099D4052F585D696A9AD_en.pdf) which stated that the person(s) allowed to see the confidential information do not have to be an employee but which decision did not decide on an “external eyes only” regime.
- According to the JR, such a regime is possible if parties agree.
- Without agreement, only in exceptional cases such as patent/competition law cases, referring to a Communication of the Commission (2020/C242/01, par. 61 et seq).
- The JR decides that there will be no “external eyes only” regime as, apart from a general statement, Ericsson has not made clear why this is clearly necessary.
Comment
- I agree with the JR, and the JR did very well by “ordering” the parties to come to an agreement, which resulted in an agreement except for the “external eyes only” issue.
- Asustek dropped its demand to appoint one representative who would be responsible for leaks by his lawyers. I think that also without such specific appointment, a representative would be responsible for leaks in their team. First of all, each representative would be responsible (of course) for their own leaks, but also the law firm (or patent attorney firm) would be responsible. The representative (and the law firm) would also be responsible for leaks by persons who work for them (assistants, etc.). This is the civil responsibility. I also think that if indeed a representative would not adhere to his/her confidentiality obligations, the Court can exclude a representative from the proceedings, and I would, in serious cases, even think that the Court could rule that a representative cannot act as representative anymore (compare R. 291 RoP and the Code of Conduct for representatives, Art. 2.2). This is all of course still separate from any disciplinary measures by the bar to which he or she belongs.
29 April 2025
Central Division Paris, Roche v Tandem
Cost decision
Facts
- Roche asked for costs because of its win in revocation proceedings.
- Roche asked for the applicability for representation costs of the ceiling of € 112,300 and furthermore travel costs and court fees.
- Tandem asked for suspension of the cost proceedings pending appeal of the case on the merits, pointed to an inconsistency where Roche asked for € 120,300 in cost of representation, and disputed the travel costs for four in-house representatives (€ 7,323.38).
Order of the Judge-Rapporteur (JR)
- The JR refuses the request for suspension.
- The Court orders the cost of representation up to the ceiling of € 112,300. (In fact, Roche’s lawyer had spent ± € 200,000) and deducts from the travel costs the costs of two in-house representatives, resulting in € 5,441.62 instead of € 7,323.38.
Comment
- The request for suspension is without merit and a waste of time for everybody. You have to have an exceptionally good special reason for such suspension. That Roche is not good for its money if Tandem wins the appeal is not very convincing, to say it mildly.
- Tandem had success in that it had to pay € 1.900 less in travel costs. It is certainly true that if I would work in Mannheim or Basel or another relatively dull city for Roche, I would certainly like to go to Paris. The Court decided rightly in my opinion that for the case, two Roche employees traveling to Paris would be sufficient, and therefore, the trip for the other two has to be paid by their company. Now, I used the word “dull”–do not get me wrong, both Mannheim and Basel are nice cities, but compared to Paris…
- So Tandem saves € 1.900 but what do they have to pay in legal fees to achieve that result? What about picking up the phone calling the representative of Roche and say: “we pay the ceiling but four in-house people is excessive. I pay for two. Otherwise I put up a fight” and settle for € 2.5K!
29 April 2025
Local Division The Hague, Handheld v Scandit
UPC_CFI_562/2024; UPC_CFI_174/2025
Settlement
Facts
Both parties filed an application for withdrawal, and both parties agreed with the request of the other party. The parties did not ask for costs.
The Court
The Court allows the withdrawal and orders that the parties are reimbursed 60% of the court costs, which they had asked for by separate applications.
Comment
I repeat myself. Parties settle and now bother the Court with four applications. When do we become sensible and realize that R. 265 RoP is not written for this and that this can all be done with the Registry?
30 April 2025
Local Division Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak
Members confidentiality club
Facts
The Claimant asks for replacement of three members of the confidentiality club by other employees because the members to be replaced have been assigned other tasks.
Kodak opposes.
Decision
Replacement of two members is accepted, the third is rejected.
Comment
- The Court states that such replacement is in principle possible, but you have to take all circumstances into account and balance the interest of the parties. That seems correct.
- With such a request, I think there are two main considerations.
- Why give people another job which results in being a member of the confidentiality club becoming useless for the company?
- An substitution of persons means that (even) more people of the other party get to know your business secrets.
- So, in general, I think there should be convincing reasons to allow such a request. Of course, it is a bit harsh if an employee would miss a deserved promotion because he has to stay in his present job due to the confidentiality club, but the question is then if after such promotion he really cannot function also part-time on the confidentiality club. Now, be careful: it is easier to do some extra work in Europe with a 35-hour workweek and 5 weeks vacation than in Japan (here the claimant is Japanese), where an employee works 40 hours a week and has 10 days vacation and, different from Europe, overtime (Zangyo) is quite common (sometimes up to 80 hours a month, which is not always paid).
- All in all, an understandable decision of the JR, who even consulted his Presiding Judge. I hope the non-German judge of the panel will not feel left out!
30 April 2025
Local Division Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio
Providing samples
The Judge-Rapporteur (JR)
- The Court has noted that the defendant has the intention to provide samples during oral argument.
- The Court recalls (R. 9.2 RoP) that it may disregard these as not having been submitted in accordance with the time set by the Rules (in this case, after the written procedure, one week before the hearing).
- A definite decision shall be made by the Court during the oral hearing.
Comment
- A reminder for representatives: you cannot, without permission of the Court, present any new fact, submission, samples, etc., after the closure of the written procedure.
- So if you want to show samples, use a video or blown-up drawings, etc., during an oral hearing, make sure you file them during the written phase; then you do not run any risk.
- If for one reason or another you have not done so, then lodge a timely Art. 9 request (I would say around 4 weeks before the oral argument) arguing that the item you want to show is for explanatory reasons only but does not contain new facts. Send at the same time a sample to the opposing party. Probably such a request will be granted, but there is no guarantee!
- Of course, if the other side does not object and it also helps the Court to understand the case better, then acceptance is likely.
- Representatives (especially patent attorneys among them) should realize that many lawyers (legal minds) sometimes have difficulty converting two-dimensional drawings in their mind into the real three-dimensional object. So samples, maquettes, etc., can be useful!
30 April 2025
Paris Central Division, Kinexon Sports v Ballinno
Inventive step
Background
Ballinno filed a PI against Kinexon at the Hamburg Local Division. The PI was denied and subsequently Ballinno filed an appeal.
Kinexon filed a revocation action on May 17, 2024. Ballinno asked for a stay because of the pending appeal proceedings, which was denied. The oral hearing took place on 21 March 2025.
Decision
- The Court repeats, for the interpretation of the patent claim, the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal in Vusion Group v Hanshow (UPC_CoA_1/2024, which referred to Nanostring, UPC_CoA_335/2023; see Hoyng, Case Law Court of Appeal of the UPC 2023-2024, pp. 23 and 35).
- The claim is broad and does not only refer to an offside situation in a soccer game as argued by the defendant.
- Independent claims 1 and 8 are not novel.
- Claims 1 and 8 are also not inventive. The Court refers to Nanostring for deciding inventive step: “taking in consideration all facts and circumstances” and “the decision is a question of law which does not lend itself to tasking evidence”.
- Further, the Court states: “Inventive step is to be addressed from the point of view of the skilled person on the basis of the state of the art as a whole including the skilled person’s common general knowledge. The skilled person is assumed to have had access to the entire publicly available art on the relevant date. The decisive factor is whether the claimed subject matter follows from the prior art in such a way that the skilled person would have found it on the basis of their knowledge and skills, for example by obvious modifications of what was already known.”
- The Court decided that the patent is also invalid because of lack of inventive step.
- The auxiliary requests were also considered to be non-inventive or were considered to contain extension of subject matter.
- The Court revoked the patent.
Comment
- Again, the defendant tried to give a broad claim a limited meaning by referring to the examples, and as a general rule, that is not possible except if from the description it becomes clear that only such a more limited meaning is meant because such meaning is necessary in order to work the invention (realize the inventive idea), but here the claim could also be applied in other sports than soccer (which was also made clear in the description!). In its auxiliary requests, the patentee formulated a much more limited claim (“off-side”, “soccer”) but was also there confronted with close prior art.
- For inventive step, the Court does not apply the (artificial) problem-solution approach. As to the “test” of the Court (which I have copied verbatim hereabove), I have only two remarks. I do not think the skilled person is considered to know the entire publicly available art. This should be restricted to art in or related to the relevant field (of his expertise). What I also miss in the last sentence is that there should be a certain incentive to start looking for a solution to a problem which the invention solves. In this case, there was certainly an incentive as it is well known that one of the most problematic tasks for a referee (and linesman) in soccer is to judge an offside situation.
- Interesting (certainly for Dutch readers) is that the question of inventive step is a matter of law: Netherland’s most brilliant patent scholar, Mr Telders, argued this already in the thirties (and more recently the Advocate General Mr Van Peursem, also very knowledgeable in the field of patents, argued the same), but the Dutch Supreme Court remains to see it as a question of fact, so that you cannot complain about it in cassation. Of course, the decision that it is a matter of law is the correct one, and therefore (fortunately) the Court of Appeal can fully judge if the decision of the Court of First Instance is right or wrong.
- The Court very clearly makes a distinction between the novelty and inventive step requirement, and that is correct. So a representative should not (as we have already seen) argue the invention is not novel and (therefore) also not inventive. You should argue novelty and inventive step separately, with arguments why the invention is (also) not inventive.
30 April 2025
Local Division Mannheim, Powermat v Anker
Streamlining
Facts
Parties agreed that all defendants are supposed to be served on April 30 and that at that date the term for Preliminary Objections and Statement of Answer/Counterclaim starts to run.
The Judge-Rapporteur (JR)
The JR decided accordingly.
Comment
Streamlining makes sense, and if it also results in an early service of non-EU defendants, then in the end, time is saved.
1 May 2025
Local Division Düsseldorf, Shanghai v Aesculap
Technical Judge in PI proceedings
Background
Aesculap has started PI proceedings against Shanghai.
The Judge-Rapporteur (JR)
During PI proceedings, the Court has to assess whether it is predominantly likely that the patent will be invalidated. Referring to Art. 8.5 second sentence of the UPCA, the JR states that also in PI proceedings, the Court can ask for a technical judge.
Comment
- If invalidity of the patent is raised in “normal” PI proceedings, that seems to make a lot of sense. Why would you have a technical judge in normal proceedings if the invalidity is raised and not in PI proceedings?
- Only in very urgent (ex parte) cases that require a decision in a few hours, this might not be possible. I note that several UPC legal judges also have a scientific background.
- I note also that it is customary to decide PI cases with the full panel, but that in my opinion, it is not a requirement. So in very urgent cases, if no (second and) third legal judge has been appointed, the local judge can issue a PI.
1 May 2025 (issued on 30 April 2025)
Court of Appeal, Insulet v EOFlow
Appeal of PI
Facts
- In the first instance, the Milan Central Division and the Milan Local Division refused to grant a PI at the request of Insulet against EOFlow (a Korean company) and Menarini (its European distributor).
- During the oral argument in appeal, efforts were made to settle the cases, which were both handled in the same appeal. Menarini settled with Insulet, but EOFlow did not.
- The Court of Appeal therefore had to decide the case against EOFlow.
The Court of Appeal
- The Court of Appeal gave an extensive introduction of the patent, which concerned an improved insulin pump, also stating what the core of the invention was.
- The Court rejected EOFlow’s argument that because Insulet had not disputed the claim interpretation and the interpretation of the (most important) prior art document of its party expert, the Court of Appeal should accept this. The Court of Appeal stated that claim interpretation is a matter of law.
- The Court of Appeal stated that the skilled person is a notional entity, not one real person. The decisive factor is not the individual knowledge of one person but the general specialist knowledge that is customary in the relevant field of technology.
- For claim interpretation, the Court of Appeal followed its precedent in Hanshow UPC_CoA_1/2024 (see Hoyng, Case Law Court of Appeal of the UPC 2023-2024, 35 and p. 21, 22).
- Claim 1 is a product claim and thus refers to the assembled product and not, as the Central Division in Milan stated, also to the disassembled state.
- The Court of Appeal then discusses very extensively why two prior art documents do not make it more likely than not that the patent is invalid based on the claim construction by the Court of Appeal and the decision that the claims of the patent relate to the assembled state only (“product claim”).
- The Court of Appeal, with respect to inventive step, holds that it cannot see any pointer in the cited prior art towards the solution for which the patent is granted.
- EOFlow’s device infringes, among other reasons, because the Court of Appeal does not accept the more limited claim interpretation by EOFlow.
- The Court of Appeal considers all the circumstances and the interests of the parties and of patients and concludes that an injunction is justified.
Comment
- As is clear from this decision, also in a PI case, there have to be very convincing reasons for an injunction not to be granted if the Court finds infringement (more likely than not), and that it is not more likely than not that the patent is invalid.
- The decision indicates that testimony of a party expert that because of his view on claim interpretation there is validity and/or no infringement, may be of limited value, because the infringement and validity questions are matters of law.
- A product claim is a claim for the product in assembled state. That means that if the constituting parts of a device are different from the device described in the description of the patent as an example, that is not a non-infringement argument if the assembled product reads on the product claim and (in this case) that such product claim cannot be invalidated if the prior art shows constituting parts which could be assembled into the patented product but which are not so assembled.
- Just (after the fact) combining prior art and claiming that there is no invention typically indicates hindsight. There should be a pointer to make such a combination, or to make the necessary changes to a prior art teaching for obtaining the invention.
- As I also wrote last week, the rule should be that infringement in one UPC state entitles you to an injunction in all the UPC states where the EP has been validated, and this is even more so with respect to a Unitary Patent. We should see the UPC (to the extent possible) as one country. Long ago, I have seen only once that a Dutch court granted a PI only for Amsterdam because the court was fed up with forum shopping on the basis that there was infringement in the Amsterdam area of the court. You can also not imagine that the Paris Patent Court would grant an injunction only for Corsica because infringement is not proven for mainland France.
2 May 2025
Local Division Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio
Preparation of the oral argument
The Judge-Rapporteur (“JR”)
- The JR points out that it is up to the discretion of the Court to order publication of the decision in the media, and that the interest of the claimant in publication must outweigh the negative consequences for the defendant;
- The JR corrects vague language in the request;
- The JR furthermore asks parties to give a preliminary estimate of the legal costs and asks for the uploading of documents and sketches which they want to use for clarification during oral argument.
- The JR furthermore indicates that the presiding judge will give an introduction of the case with a preliminary assessment so far, notwithstanding that it will also take into consideration the oral argument. The JR adds that if the Court did not raise an issue, that does not mean that the Court has not noted it. After the introduction, the parties will get an hour for the first instance and 30 minutes for reply and rebuttal.
Comment
- Publication of the decision should in my view (and that seems also the opinion of the Court) be the exception, for which the claimant should have convincing reasons.
- I think it is good that the Court states that documents and sketches to be used for clarification can be filed. It would be good if that has to happen a certain time before the oral argument so that the other side can study them and, if necessary (if they contain new facts or are misleading), can object. As written earlier, if the Court does not give an order (as in this case the JR wisely does), then you should timely request the Court to allow to use such materials (with a copy to the opposing party).
- I am not such a fan of a “preliminary assessment”. Although the JR says that of course the oral argument will be taken into consideration, my (limited) experience in the national German courts has been that in almost all cases, that preliminary assessment was the outcome of the case. On the contrary, I have no problem and applaud if the Court indicates which questions they still have or what they want to discuss after reading the written submission. However, to indicate that at the beginning of the hearing and then give parties some time to think about it (discuss internally) is far from ideal and can even lead to the wrong results. Also, it seems to me a waste of time. It is much better to send the questions or subjects to be discussed to the parties a week before the hearing.
- Representatives should make sure that they make the observations which they think are important for their case, even if the Court did not address it and maybe even ignore it if you raise it. On appeal, you cannot make such observations anymore!
- Although I accept that a certain local flavour should be possible, I wonder if during a next training session, judges should agree on a somewhat more common approach to the oral hearing (and the role of the interim conference). Not only is that easier for the judges in the panel that come from other traditions with respect to oral arguments, but also for the representatives, a somewhat more uniform approach makes it easier to appear in all Divisions.
2 May 2025
Local Division Mannheim, InterDigital v Walt Disney
Change of language
Facts
The Walt Disney companies that were sued in these proceedings are all established in the US, the UK, and (one) in the Netherlands. The claimant is a US company. The defendants, i.e. the Walt Disney companies, ask for a change of language from German to English (based on R. 323.1 RoP).
Decision of the President of the Court of First Instance
- The admissibility of the request (not lodged with the Statement of Defence but earlier) is not disputed.
- The President refers to the criteria established by the Court of Appeal in cases 101/2024 and 354/20234 (see Hoyng, Case Law Court of Appeal of the UPC 2023-2024, 31 and p. 66).
- The President repeats what is not important:
-
- language skills of the representatives;
- the nationality of the judges;
- the fact that there are already proceedings in foreign courts in different languages;
- 14.1 RoP does not mean that language cannot be changed.
-
- The President grants the request and the language of the proceedings is changed to English.
Comment
- This very well-motivated decision was a no-brainer in light of the case law of the Court of Appeal. For a neutral observer, it is also not understandable that InterDigital, a US company, started the case in German, as it was quite clear from the start that that was not going to work.
- If you really think as a US claimant that your representatives are not good enough in English or that the German judges may not be good enough in English to understand nuances (both clearly no reasons to refuse a change of language – see the Case Law of the Court of Appeal), then I advise them to go to the Local Division in The Hague (my personal experience is that the judges speak English almost as their mother tongue) and look for Dutch or Scandinavian representatives who are absolutely fluent in English. They work in small countries with languages which nobody speaks elsewhere, and their whole daily practice in the field of patents is in English.
- As to the judges, the Advisory Committee does not recommend appointing a judge who does lacks good knowledge of English, so I cannot see that a litigant would have a disadvantage if he has to proceed in English instead of German as long as he has counsel who speaks and understands excellent English.
- It has already been decided that you can ask for a change of language before the Statement of Defence, and also here (as the decision about bifurcation or the appointment of technical judges), the earlier the better!
2 May 2025
Local Division Düsseldorf, Evac Oy v Shanghai
Settlement
Decision of the Court
- The Court confirms that claimant and defendants 4 to 6 concluded a settlement.
- The settlement will be filed in the Register.
- The case continues against defendants 1 to 3.
- A cost decision is not necessary as parties have reached an agreement..
Comment
- Finally, a settlement which does not lead to the unnecessary cross-applications under R. 265 RoP. R. 365 RoP is the way to do it. Note that you are not obliged to have the settlement registered in the Register.
- In case of a settlement, both parties inform the JR (and state that they have agreed on costs and claim court fees back if necessary). I wrote earlier just inform the Registry, who will inform the Court. The latter would be even more practical, but as R. 365 RoP states that parties should inform the JR, then that can also be done directly rather than indirectly via the Registrar.
- However, in general, in my opinion, the Court should not be burdened with mundane tasks. That is the more so as UPC judges have no assistance whatsoever and have to do everything themselves. All UPC judges should, in my view, have the possibility to choose one law clerk (somebody who just has a law degree and works for a year as a intern/trainee for the judge). The law clerk can help the judge with research and mundane tasks, etc. A very interesting experience for a young lawyer on the one hand, and on the other hand, we make more efficient use of the judges, which makes the UPC more economical, but unfortunately, also here I have been one crying out in the wilderness!
– All comments above are Prof. Hoyng‘s personal opinions –
For all decisions of the UPC’s Court of Appeal from the start in 2023 until 1 January 2025, Willem Hoyng’s more comprehensive summaries and comments are bundled in the book “Case law – Court of Appeal of the UPC 2023-2024”.