No fluff. No long podcasts. Just sharp, actionable insights on the latest UPC decisions — in 2 minutes.
In our UPC video series, we break down the latest UPC decisions and developments into clear takeaways. Brief, to the point, and always focused on what matters most for patent practitioners – every second Thursday, in just 2 minutes.
Emboline v AorticLab — Munich Local Division, 13 January 2026
Today’s bite is about an interesting procedural strategy in revocation counterclaim proceedings — and its cost consequences.
In the previous episode, we looked at the Court of Appeal’s clarification in Barco v Yealink:
Brussels I Recast governs international jurisdiction, while Art. 33 UPCA governs internal competence. Today, I want to focus on a related question — namely, who must raise and substantiate an objection based on a lack of international jurisdiction, and when this must be done.
In a recent order of 28 November 2025 in Barco v Yealink, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified a fundamental distinction that is sometimes blurred in practice: the difference between international jurisdiction and internal competence within the UPC. – The key message is this: International jurisdiction is governed by Brussels I Recast.
Two episodes ago, Tilman Pfrang discussed Amgen v Sanofi/Regeneron for its importance on inventive step and the Court of Appeal’s holistic approach.
Today, he wants to return to the same judgment of 25 November 2025, but focus on sufficiency of disclosure.
You can follow UPC Video Bites on all major short-form platforms:
YouTube Instagram TikTok LinkedIn
One format. Multiple platforms. Always under 120 seconds.
Stay one step ahead in UPC litigation — subscribe to our newsletter.
