Who we are
Intellectual property is our passion.
We are driven by ideas and innovation.
We work tirelessly to protect them and help our clients changing the world around us.
HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER understands the need for an intellectual property lawyer who knows the industry at hand, is straight-talking and straight-shooting, and able to deliver. No matter what.
Our dedicated European team has more than one hundred intellectual property professionals. In the full belief there cannot be a compromise as to legal quality, we chose to dedicate our practice entirely to intellectual property and related regulatory issues. But we also have the technical background and expertise to deal with the most challenging technologies often involved in IP disputes. Our experience and pioneering mentality unite in groundbreaking cases we handle across borders.
HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER is the go-to intellectual property law firm in Europe.
Latest News
Statistics on the Unified Patent Court: Withdrawal and conclusion rates - October 2026
As part of HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER's series on statistics on the Unified Patent Court (UPC), this section presents how often patent disputes are concluded through a withdrawal. It is limited to infringement and revocation actions, declarations of non-infringement and applications for provisional measures, both at first instance and on appeal.
The analysis draws on publicly available UPC records compiled as of 19 October 2026. Withdrawals include proceedings discontinued or settled before a substantive decision. On appeal, the figures distinguish between all relevant appeals under rule 220.1 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) and those directed specifically at first instance findings on the merits.
Interested in more of this? Stay tuned and subscribe here for monthly updates. You can contact our experts here.
WHAT CAN STILL BE ADDED ON APPEAL? - key learnings and practical takeaways on late filing from recent UPC CoA case law
As we all are well aware, UPC proceedings are front-loaded: Parties are expected to put forward their case, including the relevant facts and evidence, at an early stage, if not as early as possible. But does this mean that the record is completely closed once the case reaches the Court of Appeal (“CoA”)? This question is what we aim to address in this blog post.
Why focus on this now? In recent decisions, the Court of Appeal has given further guidance on what parties can and cannot still add or change on appeal. The decisions draw a practical line and show an important distinction between, on the one hand, further developing a case already made in first instance and, on the other hand, trying to build a new factual or evidentiary case on appeal.
UPC Unfiltered, by Willem Hoyng – UPC decisions week 44, 2026
Below, 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 for weekly updates.
Find all decisions, commentary and more on our UPC Intelligence Platform.
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 or Apple Podcasts.