# News Detail Share now [](https://www.linkedin.com/uas/login?session_redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2FshareArticle%3Fmini%3Dtrue%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.hoyngrokhmonegier.com%2Fnl%2Fnieuws%2Fdetail%2Fupc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-07-2026%26title%3DUPC%20Unfiltered%2C%20by%20Willem%20Hoyng%20%E2%80%93%20UPC%20decisions%20week%2007%2C%202026%26summary%3D "Linkedin") # UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 07, 2026 16 februari 2026 Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hot Topic News Below, [Prof. Willem Hoyng](https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/our-team/legal-experts/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**](https://mailchi.mp/8fbd8890d03b/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng) 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**](https://open.spotify.com/show/53wwzF7LNSqqouR0wzXgJD?si=ae84739b09904ee1&nd=1&dlsi=71b6a174bdbd4f32) or [**Apple Podcasts**](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/willem-hoyngs-upc-unfiltered-ai-podcast/id1806092389). #### **23 January 2026** ***(late published)*** **Local Division Düsseldorf, Van Loon v Inverquark** [UPC\_CFI\_1325/2025](https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/2026-01-23%20Freigabe_signed_all.pdf) (English translation available [here](https://www.veron.com/wp-content/uploads/pve-upc/fichiers/2026-01-23_LD_Dusseldorf_UPC_CFI_1325-2025_en-GB.pdf)) ***Inspection order*** **Facts** 1. On 30 October 2025, an order for inspection was executed against the defendant Inverquark at the “Aquanale Köln” exhibition . 2. On 12 November 2025, the Judge-Rapporteur (JR) gave access to the unredacted description of the expert to the representatives of the applicant Van Loon, forbidding them disclose the content to their client until further notice. In the meantime, Inverquark was given the possibility to file a confidentiality request before 26 November 2026. 3. On 26 November 2025, Inverquark informed the JR that it was going to apply for a review of the inspection order and, until then, asked to postpone the decision on confidentiality of the collected evidence. 4. On 28 November 2025, Inverquark informed the Court that it would not ask for a review but requested instead that the expert write a supplementary report commenting on certain questions. It also asked that the decision as to confidentiality be postponed further. 5. Van Loon opposed these requests and asked for full disclosure of the report. **The Court** 1. There is no basis in the rules for allowing the expert’s description to be supplemented after suggestions by the parties. The expert is only appointed to inspect and preserve evidence, not as an adviser to the court in accordance with Article 57 UPCA. 2. The unredacted version of the report is made accessible to the claimant because the defendant failed to timely ask for confidentiality. **Comment** 1. This is a reasonable decision. The description is ordered by the Court and the work of the court-appointed expert. 2. Parties have no say about what the expert writes or not in his/her inspection report: if they do not agree with the content, they can say (and prove) so during the main proceedings which the applicant is required to bring shortly after the inspection procedure. 3. The defendant should have timely indicated what should have remained confidential in the report. Playing games for time did not work! #### **29 October 2025** ***(late published)*** **Local Division Munich, Skechers v Fast IP** [UPC\_CFI\_743/2025](https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/MUNC%20LD_order_R323_743__2025.pdf) ***Change of language*** **Facts** 1. A US-based company sued another US-based company and its European subsidiaries in German before the Local Division Munich. 2. Skechers (the defendants) requested that the language of the proceedings be changed to English. **The President of the Court of First Instance** Grants the request (of course). **Comment** See hereafter. #### **18 November 2025** ***(late published)*** **Local Division Munich, TP Link (USA) v Huawei (China)** [UPC\_CFI\_804/2025](https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/MUNC%20LD_order_R%20323_804__2025_.pdf) ***Change of language*** **Facts** 1. Chinese company v US company with subsidiaries. 2. The defendants ask for a change of language from German to English. **The President of the Court of First Instance** Grants the request (of course). **Comment** See my comments with respect to the decisions reported hereafter. #### **20 January 2026** ***(late published)*** **Local Division Munich, Pinterest (US) v Nagravision (Swiss)** [UPC\_CFI\_1506/2025](https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/MUNC%20LD_order_R323_1506__2025.pdf) ***Change of language*** **Facts** 1. A French company sued a US company with European subsidiaries. 2. The case was filed in German. 3. The defendants ask for change of language. **The President of the Court of First Instance** Grants the request (of course). **Comment** See my comments with respect to the decisions reported hereafter. #### **26 January 2026** ***(late published)*** **Local Division Mannheim, Amazon v InterDigital** [UPC\_CFI\_2045/2025](https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/MANNH%20LD-order%20R%20323_2045_2025.pdf) ***Change of language*** **Facts** 1. A French subsidiary of InterDigital (a US company) sued Amazon (a US company with European subsidiaries) in German in the Local Division Mannheim. 2. Amazon requested a change of language in the language of the patent (English). **The President of the Court of First Instance** Grants the change of language. **Comment** 1. While this is also a no-brainer (like the decisions in the cases reported above), the President of the CFI gives (again!) an elaborate convincing reasoning. 2. The Claimant must have seen this coming. So why is it wasting time and money by not filing in English? 3. One may wonder why this case (like the other cases) was not filed in a less busy Division which also has experience with FRAND cases and practices English as if it were their mother tongue (e.g. the Divisions in The Hague, Paris or the Baltic/Nordic Regional Division). 4. Some German representatives continue to file cases in German in busy German Divisions even though they have no particular connection with Germany. These representatives do not seem to accept that the UPC is an international Court which guarantees the same quality everywhere, nor that English is the international business language. #### **26 January 2026** ***(late published)*** **Local Division Munich, Nordmeccanica v Bobst** [UPC\_CFI\_1064/2025](https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/MUNC%20LD_order_R323_1064__2025.pdf) ***Change of language*** **Facts** 1. The case was filed in the Local Division Munich in German. 2. The Italian defendant asked for a change of language to English. **The President of the Court of First Instance** Again gave an elaborate reasoning, although, with Bobst (the claimant) being a UK company, the outcome was clear from the beginning. **Comment** 1. See my comments above which also fully apply to this case. Why did Bobst, a UK company, file a case against an Italian company in German in the busy Munich Division? 2. Did Bobst want to learn German? If so they better go to a language course then spending their money on translations. 3. In order to promote the use of the UPC as a truly multinational Court and English as a common language between the participants, I would be tempted to offer a reward to a German representative of a non-German claimant if he/she starts a case against another non-German (parent) company in English in a non-German Division. #### **4 February 2026** ***(late published)*** **Court of Appeal, Centripetal v Palo Alto Networks** [UPC\_CoA\_891/2025](https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/Final%20order%20Centripetal%20-%20Palo%20Alto.pdf) ***Order for inspection*** **Facts** 1. Centripetal asked for an ex parte order for inspection and preserving evidence. The Local Division Mannheim refused on the ground of insufficient probability of infringement. 2. Centripetal appealed. On 28 May 2025, the Court of Appeal set aside the LD decision holding that Centripetal met the standard of presenting reasonably available evidence of infringement. 3. The LD Mannheim consequently granted an ex parte order. 4. Palo Alto’s agent present at the premises where the saisie took place had no access to Palo Alto’s system. Palo Alto refused to give access. 5. The LD Mannheim (first the JR and thereafter the whole panel in review proceedings) refused to impose penalties. 6. Palo Alto lodged an application for review of the saisie order. 7. The LD Mannheim revoked the saisie order. 8. Centripetal appealed and asked for an amended order. 9. In the meantime, the Opposition Division revoked the patent in opposition proceedings lodged by a third party (appeal pending). **The Court of Appeal** 1. The Court of Appeal referred to R. 222.2 RoP which deals with new requests on appeal. The Court has discretion to allow such new requests (or not), taking into account: 1. whether the request could have been made earlier; 2. the relevance of the new request for the appeal; 3. the position of the other party. 2. The Court of Appeal found that the request was not a more limited request as argued by Centripetal, but a different one, namely targeting documents irrespective of their location and possibly also a broader category. 3. No justification was given by Centripetal as to why this request could not have been made earlier. 4. Appeal rejected. **Comment** 1. As I have said before, the UPC is front-loaded and therefore requires extensive preparation before starting litigation, as corrections cannot be made along the way. 2. The same is true on appeal. As opposed to several national systems where one can correct omissions or mistakes on appeal or make changes to one’s claims, this case proves that in the UPC that is (in principle) not possible. 3. In these circumstances, the appellant should have argued that the amendments to the request are due to facts which it could not reasonably have known at the time when it filed the request in first instance. But on the facts of this case, I do not think that this would have convinced the Court of Appeal. 4. A better strategy may have been to file a new request in a Local Division citing different facts and circumstances. However, since the patent was in the meantime already revoked by the OD, this would not have led to a better result! 5. That being said, a Local Division could also refuse such a second request if it is obvious that the reason that the first order did not lead to a positive result was clearly because of insufficient preparation of the first request. The test should in my opinion be somewhat less strict though than the test applicable before the Court of Appeal. #### **4 February 2026** ***(late published)*** **Local Division Paris, Bostik v Henkel** [UPC\_CFI\_583/2025](https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/order%2004%2002%202026%20LD%20PARIS.pdf) ***Production of evidence*** **Facts** 1. The case concerns an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation. 2. Bostik asked the Court to order Henkel to submit Technical Data sheets on certain products both through the CMS and by email to Bostik’s representatives. **The Court** 1. The Court refers to Article 49.1 of the UPCA and R. 190 RoP. 2. The Court accepts Bostik’s arguments that it is practically impossible to get the evidence of infringement as the technical information provided on Henkel’s website and written materials are insufficiently detailed. 3. Furthermore, the Court considers the requested materials exist and are necessary for Bostik to be able to respond to Henkel’s defence. 4. The Court orders Henkel to produce the data sheets via the CMS. 5. It refuses to order that the materials should also be communicated by email and to impose penalty payments in case of refusal by Henkel. 6. The Court considers R. 36 RoP (request to file additional submissions) is not applicable at this stage but both parties will be able to comment on the new materials with their next submissions. **Comment** 1. This decision is in all aspects well-reasoned. 2. Indeed, the UPC can order the production of specified evidence in the possession of the defendant or a third party to (further) prove the alleged infringement. 3. Obviously, such a “self-incriminating” measure should only be granted if on the basis of the applicant’s submissions, there is a (clear) suspicion of infringement. The requirement that the request targets “specified” evidence is meant to avoid fishing expeditions and US-style discovery proceedings. 4. The Court is also right to refuse to impose penalties in case of non-compliance: Henkel may choose not to produce the documents but then the court can draw any conclusion from such refusal. 5. The Court is also right about R. 26 RoP which addresses the need for further exchanges after all the written submissions have been filed. In this case, I assume parties can react on the Rejoinder and the Reply. #### **5 February 2026** ***(late published)*** **Local Division The Hague, Adeia v Walt Disney** [UPC\_CFI\_666/2024; UPC\_CFI\_199/2025](https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/Order%20666-2025%20R.%20265%20decision%20Adeia%20-%20Walt%20Disney.pdf) ***Settlement / reimbursement of court fees*** **Facts** The parties settled and filed R. 265.1 RoP withdrawal requests, asking 40% of the court fees back. **The Court** 1. The Court grants the R. 265.1 RoP requests and cancels the hearing of January 29, 2026. 2. The Court disagrees with the parties on the return of fees, and rules that the interim procedure was in fact already closed. As there is no formal requirement when it comes to the closure of the interim procedure, the order issued by the JR after the interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP) can and has to be considered as the implicit message to the President that the interim procedure is closed (R. 110 RoP). Accordingly, the parties only get 20% of the court fees back. **Comment** 1. Very good decision with respect to the return of fees! 2. We also see some magic in the order: cancelling an oral hearing with retroactive effect! 3. It seems clear that the case was settled just before the oral hearing, after the judges had already spent time preparing for it. Under the new reimbursement rules, there would be no return of fees at all at this stage. As I have said before, hopefully a first step towards the abolishment of court fees reimbursement (except in exceptional circumstances). 4. If cases are settled and cost orders not necessary, a letter of both parties to the Registry should be sufficient. The Registrar can decide about the return of court fees. Judges should not spend their time on these unnecessary formalities (nor on cost determination proceedings). I have not yet received any email claiming the champagne! #### **9 February 2026** **Court of Appeal, Papst Licensing v EPO** [UPC\_CoA\_8/2026](https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/files/api_order/Decision%20Papst%20vs%20EPO%208-2026%20EN.pdf) ***Obtaining unitary effect*** **Facts** 1. Papst wants unitary effect for a patent granted in April 2025 on the basis of a parent application filed in 2005. 2. In 2005, Malta was not yet a member of the European Patent Convention. It joined on 1 March 2007. So it was not possible at the time to include Malta in the application nor to get a European patent covering Malta. 3. Papst appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division upholding an EPO decision denying unitary effect for a European patent not designating Malta. **The Standing Judge of the Court of Appeal** 1. After very thorough and elaborate considerations, ruled that Papst’s claim is clearly *contra legem* (Art. 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012). 2. There is no reason to refer questions to the European Court of Justice. **Comment** 1. Where the rule is crystal clear (“acte clair”), there is no need for questions to the ECJ. 2. Papst paid for a result everyone saw coming, but at least the standing judge made sure they got a full legal masterclass with it! **– All comments above are** [**Prof. Hoyng**](https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/our-team/legal-experts/prof-willem-hoyng "https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/our-team/legal-experts/prof-willem-hoyng")**‘s personal opinions –**