Over ons
Intellectuele eigendom is onze passie.
We werken onvermoeibaar om de ideeën en innovaties van onze cliënten te beschermen en hen te helpen de wereld om ons heen te veranderen.
HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER begrijpt de behoefte aan een IE advocaat die uw sector kent, rechtdoorzee is, vooruit denkt en resultaten boekt. Wat er ook gebeurt.
Ons toegewijde Europese team telt meer dan honderd IE professionals. In de volle overtuiging dat geen compromis mag worden gedaan aan de juridische kwaliteit, wijden wij onze praktijk volledig aan de intellectuele eigendom en daarmee samenhangende regelgeving. Daarnaast beschikken we ook over de technische achtergrond en expertise om om te gaan met de meest uitdagende technologieën die vaak op het spel staan bij IE-geschillen. Onze ervaring en pioniersmentaliteit komen samen in de baanbrekende zaken die we grensoverschrijdend behandelen.
HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER is het “go-to” IE advocatenkantoor in Europa.
Recent Nieuws
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.