In 'UPC Unfiltered' for week 36 of 2026, published September 7, Willem Hoyng of Hoyng Rokh Monegier reviews the latest Unified Patent Court decisions, led by the Dusseldorf Local Division's September 2 judgment in InterDigital v Walt Disney. InterDigital sued 11 Disney companies over EP 2 080 349, targeting the Disney+ streaming service; Disney counterclaimed for revocation. The court held granted claims 1, 4 and 8 lacked novelty, but found auxiliary request K5 novel — and, because Disney had not mounted an inventive-step attack against the full combination of K5's features, upheld it, granting confidentiality protection for information Disney must supply. Hoyng sharply criticizes the procedural dynamics: the claimant's 36 auxiliary requests forced the defendant to defend against more than 30 requests at the oral hearing, 'never the intention of the drafters of the Rules of Procedure,' and produced a validity finding by default rather than by full debate.

The Court of Appeal was active on procedure. In Fujifilm v Kodak (August 31), it refused suspensive effect for Fujifilm's rehearing request: under Article 81(2) UPCA and Rule 252 RoP, a rehearing application has no suspensive effect, and merely referencing alleged fundamental procedural defects from the main case is not enough — a rehearing 'is not a further appeal.' In WEPA v Essity (September 3), the Court of Appeal upheld an ex parte evidentiary seizure but found WEPA's complaint about employee questioning well-founded: questioning on technical details must be conducted under the court's control, while only practical questions needed to execute the order (such as passwords) are permitted. It ordered the original expert report destroyed and a new one filed within two weeks.

In Aesculap v Bojin (Dusseldorf, September 1), the court granted an injunction against an intermediary — the holder of the CE declaration of conformity needed to import the infringing medical products — covering Germany, France and, conditionally, the UK, holding that while the CE holder was not a co-infringer, ordering it to stop providing services usefully prevents further infringement. Hoyng disagrees with the narrow accessory-liability analysis, warning it lets non-EU producers sell online through EU subsidiaries that hold CE registrations but do nothing else, leaving damages to be collected where collection is difficult or impossible.

Cost and fee rulings rounded out the week. In X v Amycel (Court of Appeal, September 3), a private appellant's request for Polish-English interpretation was refused: such requests must be lodged at least one month before the hearing (R. 109.1 RoP), and a represented party who merely wishes to follow proceedings better must arrange its own interpreter — the self-financed court will pay only in exceptional circumstances. In Grundfos v Xinhu (Dusseldorf, September 4), the court ordered the refund of security for costs after the defendant paid the cost award, prompting Hoyng to ask whether such deposits earn interest and who should bear lost interest. And in IAGON v Influx (Munich, September 2), a EUR 112,000 security-for-costs request was rejected: registration in the UAE, without more, does not justify security where evidence shows monetary claims are generally enforceable there.

Original Link: https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-36-2026