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.
In a follow-up order of 30 January 2026, the Mannheim Local Division confirmed substantial penalty payments for continued non-compliance with recall, destruction and information obligations. But the real interest lies elsewhere.
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.
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.
