You, me & the UPC

Hosted by Bristows LLP

BusinessInterviews guests

Website RSS feed

Episodes

Latest episode

Aug 2026

Language

EN-GB

About the show

Bristows' patent litigation experts unpack key UPC decisions, explore their implications, and share practical strategies to help your business navigate the UPC with confidence. Note: All information was correct at the time of recording.

Listen to episodes

60 recent

September 11, 2026Episode 884 min

Case by Case | The Düsseldorf Local Chamber Clarifies “Double-Flat” Claims and Confirms Intermediary Liability for EU Authorised Representatives.

Rachael Cartwright explores a decision that will be of particular interest to medical device manufacturers and their regulatory representatives. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber (LC) considered the scope of liability of an EU authorised representative in proceedings concerning EP 2 892 442, designated in Germany, France and the UK, relating to surgical torque transmitting instruments. The patent proprietor ultimately continued its case only against the German entity acting as the authorised representative for the Chinese manufacturer after settling with the other defendants. The Court found that the accused “Bojin” surgical tools infringed claim 1 of the patent and were suitable for use in an instrument falling within claim 6. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at upcpodcast@bristows.com . Find all the episodes as we release them here . Follow us on LinkedIn .

September 4, 2026Episode 873 min

Case by Case | Court of Appeal dismisses added matter and inventive step attacks, upholding Abbott’s glucose monitoring patent

Florence Plisner unpacks a Court of Appeal (CoA) decision. The CoA dismissed Sibio’s appeal against the Paris Central Division’s decision upholding Abbott’s patent relating to continuous glucose monitoring devices, in a judgment that provides important guidance on the assessment of added matter and, in particular, intermediate generalisations. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at upcpodcast@bristows.com . Find all the episodes as we release them here . Follow us on LinkedIn .

September 4, 2026Episode 863 min

Case by Case | The Hamburg Local Division provides further guidance on the relationship between patent pool and bilateral licensing, implementer willingness, and the scope of the FRAND defence

Patrick Newlands talks about a Hamburg Local Decision (LD) today from 24 August 2026. The LD issued a significant FRAND decision in Fraunhofer v HMD , rejecting HMD’s FRAND defence while providing guidance on when an implementer can insist on a bilateral SEP licence instead of taking a pool licence. The LD confirmed that an SEP owner can satisfy its FRAND obligations if it offers one FRAND-compliant licence, whether through a patent pool or bilaterally. Accordingly, where both routes are available, an injunction will not be defeated if at least one of them complies with competition law. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at upcpodcast@bristows.com . Find all the episodes as we release them here . Follow us on LinkedIn .

August 28, 2026Episode 853 min

Case by Case | Court of Appeal confirms retroactive effect of overturned UPC judgments, having no legal effect for enforcement purposes

Eden Winlow speaks on a Court of Appeal (CoA) decision today. The CoA set aside penalty orders requiring Kodak to pay €1.72 million for alleged non-compliance with an earlier infringement judgment in favour of Fujifilm. The appeal followed the Court’s earlier decision on the merits, in which the Mannheim Local Division’s (LD) infringement judgment was overturned and Kodak was found not to infringe because it could rely on a private prior use right, previously reported here and here . If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at upcpodcast@bristows.com . Find all the episodes as we release them here . Follow us on LinkedIn .

August 28, 2026Episode 845 min

Case by Case | Paris Local Division Refuses Stay UPC proceedings despite parallel National Revocation action

On 30 July 2026 the Paris Local Division (LD) refused to stay the infringement action initiated by several companies in the Merz group (Merz) despite parallel revocation proceedings before the Paris National Court, Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris (Paris TJ). The Court’s decision provides further guidance on the application of Art. 29 and 30 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation (BIRR) to parallel national and UPC proceedings. Listen to Hannah Rigby's explanation of the decision. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at upcpodcast@bristows.com . Find all the episodes as we release them here . Follow us on LinkedIn .

August 21, 2026Episode 833 min

Case by Case | Court of Appeal clarifies the method for calculating Court fees in appeals in accordance with R. 220.1(a) RoP

On 15 July 2026, the CoA issued an order in proceedings between Qualcomm and Network System Technologies , clarifying aspects of the how UPC Court fees should be calculated when filing appeal proceedings. The dispute concerned the calculation and payment of appeal fees in proceedings where Network System Technologies (NST) had commenced infringement proceedings against Qualcomm entities and Samsung relating to three patents, and counterclaims for revocation of these patents had been commenced by Qualcomm. The infringement actions against Samsung were subsequently withdrawn. Chris Dixon walks you through the decision in today's episode. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at upcpodcast@bristows.com . Find all the episodes as we release them here . Follow us on LinkedIn .

August 21, 2026Episode 822 min

Case by Case | Court of Appeal upholds injunction finding provisional measures necessary to prevent competitive harm

Ewan MacAulay discusses a Court of Appeal (CoA) (Panel 3, Judge Ulrike Voß presiding) handed down on 8 July 2026. It concerned AngelAlign’s appeal against the 12 February 2026 order of the Düsseldorf Local Division (LD) to issue a Preliminary Injunction (PI) for its alleged infringement of Align Technologies’ patent EP 4 346 690. Keep on top of UPC cases as they develop by visiting our UPC case tracker . If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at upcpodcast@bristows.com . Find all the episodes as we release them here . Follow us on LinkedIn .

August 14, 2026Episode 811 min

Case by Case | Düsseldorf Local Division clarifies the scope of NDAs in FRAND negotiations

Luke Norton explores the Düsseldorf Local Division decision in InterDigital v The Walt Disney from 23 July 2026, finding that Disney had infringed InterDigital’s patent EP 2 449 782, which relates to the signalling of intra prediction information in video encoding and bitstreams. Disney’s counterclaim for revocation failed, as the patent was found not to contain added matter and the claims were held to be both novel and inventive over the cited prior art. Visit our UPC case tracker to stay up-to-date on the latest UPC developments. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at upcpodcast@bristows.com . Find all the episodes as we release them here . Follow us on LinkedIn .

August 14, 2026Episode 803 min

Case by Case | Court of Appeal confirms scope for reliance on dependent claims in revocation proceedings

In today's episode, Rebekka Thomas discusses the Court of Appeal decision in Fujifilm v Kodak concerning EP 3 476 616, relating to lithographic printing plate precursors, manufacturing methods and printing methods. The Court overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s (LD) revocation of the patent and dismissal of Fujifilm’s infringement action, holding that a patentee may rely on granted dependent claims and claim combinations already encompassed by the patent as granted without filing an auxiliary request. Find out more about UPC cases here . If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at upcpodcast@bristows.com . Find all the episodes as we release them here . Follow us on LinkedIn .

August 7, 2026Episode 791 min

Case by case | Hamburg Local Division restricts UPC jurisdiction over UK patent parts despite EU anchor defendants

On 8 June 2026, the Hamburg Local Division partially granted the Defendants’ preliminary objection under r.19.1(a) RoP concerning the UPC’s international jurisdiction over a US-based defendant in respect of infringement in a non-UPC member state, in this case, the UK. Listen to Amy Howlett's rundown of the decision today. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at upcpodcast@bristows.com . Find all the episodes as we release them here . Follow us on LinkedIn .