UPC Analytics
DEEN

Rechtsfragen

Querschnittsansicht der Rechtsgrundsätze, wiederkehrender Argumente und des Stands der Technik, auf den sich das Gericht stützt.

Meistdiskutierte Rechtsgrundsätze
Wiederkehrende Rechtsgrundsätze über 2 Fälle mit extrahierter Begründung. Die Erfolgsquote zählt patenthalterfreundliche Ausgänge.
GrundsatzFälleEntschiedenPatenthalter-Erfolg
provisional measures require sufficient certainty of patent validity, not merely the court's own view220%
urgency / undue delay standard for provisional measures (two months presumptively acceptable)11100%
claim interpretation using description and drawings under art. 69 epc and coa principles11100%
summary validity assessment at pi stage limited to best three invalidity arguments11100%
provisional cost reimbursement requires special grounds (e.g., insolvency risk)11100%
burden of proof for infringement lies with applicant110%
reversal of burden of proof requires reasonable prior indications of infringement110%
infringement must be established before validity and other pi requirements are assessed110%
anti-anti-suit injunction (aasi) / anti-enforcement injunction (aei) jurisdiction at upc11100%
eu charter right to access to justice (art. 47)11100%
foreign anti-enforcement injunctions as unlawful acts under german law11100%
frand / sep context for access to justice protection11100%
anti-anti-suit injunction (aasi) in sep context11100%
threat of infringement of patent proprietor's property right by filing foreign asi application11100%
ex parte provisional measures without security in urgent circumstances11100%
eu charter art. 47 right to access to justice11100%
validity burden in provisional measures proceedings11100%
holding company / parent company liability for patent infringement11100%
preclusion of late-filed arguments under rule 9.2 rop11100%
leave to appeal procedural orders under rule 220.2 rop11100%
Häufigste zurückgewiesene Argumente
Argumente, die das UPC nicht akzeptiert hat, sortiert nach wiederholten Auftritten in Fällen.
ArgumentParteiFälle
preliminary cost reimbursement order should be granted in preliminary injunction proceedingsKläger1
validity attacks (best three arguments) defeat the patent at pi stageBeklagter1
attacked embodiment (speed care hemostatic gauze) contains a binder as required by patent claimsKläger1
burden of proof should be reversed because applicant has provided reasonable indications of infringementKläger1
leave to appeal the procedural order disregarding late-filed arguments should be grantedBeklagter1
relying on combinations of claim 1 with sub-claims makes invalidity of claim 1 more likelyBeklagter1
application for provisional measures for infringement of ep 4 201 327 relating to insulin pump technologyKläger1
security for costs in the amount of eur 200,000 due to risk of inability to enforce cost judgment against a us companyBeklagter1
application for provisional measures for infringement of patent relating to furniture fittings (height-adjustable leg installation tool)Kläger1
epo examining division's view (expressed during third-party observation proceedings) that d8 did not disclose feature 3.2.2 settles the claim construction questionKläger1
application for information disclosure (sub (b) of the order sought)Kläger1
action is devoid of purpose because defendants already ceased infringementBeklagter1
abbott acted with unreasonable delayBeklagter1
security for costs of enforcement should be orderedBeklagter1
request to order curio bioscience to compensate 10x genomics for reputational and other damages incurred as a result of the proceedingsBeklagter1
request by 10x genomics for defendant to provide security for anticipated litigation costsKläger1
direct infringement of device claim established because defendant appropriates downstream customer acts (verlängerte werkbank / extended workbench theory)Kläger1
patent ep 3 866 051 is invalid (validity challenge in pi proceedings)Beklagter1
cilag had urgency because it only became aware of the true extent of infringement and market risk (sana acceptance, price erosion risk) in april 2025Kläger1
david vs. goliath argument: cilag's larger market position vs. rivolution's smaller size creates special urgencyKläger1
applications to submit further evidence after the oral hearing should be admittedKläger1
preliminary injunction should be granted to prevent imminent infringement of ep 3 805 248 by celltrion's biosimilarKläger1
valeo lacks entitlement to bring pi proceedings / patent title is manifestly erroneousBeklagter1
general revocation rates of patents indicate the patent is more likely than not invalidBeklagter1
feature of connector support received through distal-facing opening into recess is supported by multiple passages and figures in the application as filedKläger1
Meistzitierter Stand der Technik
Über substanzielle Hauptsachefälle herangezogene Schriften und ihre typische Rolle.
SchriftreferenzVorherrschende RolleFälle
US 994Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
D8Neuheitsschädlich1
ITRE 20100070 A1 (D9)Neuheitsschädlich1
WO 2011/119896Abgegrenzt1
US'994 (US patent cited as prior art against EP 4 201 327 claim 1)Neuheitsschädlich1