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 1 Fälle mit extrahierter Begründung. Die Erfolgsquote zählt patenthalterfreundliche Ausgänge.
GrundsatzFälleEntschiedenPatenthalter-Erfolg
problem-solution approach (noted as not mandatory under epc but applied as consistent with outcome)11100%
patent limitation during proceedings can defeat revocation action11100%
cost-splitting where revocation dismissed only due to in-proceedings amendment11100%
admissibility of patent amendments in partial revocation actions11100%
late-filed documents and proportionate response rule11100%
priority date cuts off prior art for inventive step (art. 56 epc)11100%
front-loaded procedure and inadmissibility of new grounds not responsive to defence11100%
problem-solution approach for inventive step11100%
standstill clause breach does not bar action but may give rise to contractual liability11100%
motivation to combine prior art references required for obviousness11100%
problem-solution approach — court noted it is not mandatory under epc but would not change the outcome if applied11100%
patent maintenance as amended — court can maintain patent in limited form pursuant to auxiliary request11100%
closest prior art identification11100%
costs apportioned where patent is maintained only because defendant (patentee) filed a limitation during proceedings11100%
direct infringement under art. 25(a) upca — supply of all components designed for simple assembly at point of use11100%
direct infringement — sale of a single component of a multi-component product where assembly is indicated or obvious11100%
distinction between direct and indirect infringement in component supply scenarios11100%
costs allocation for director-defendants sued in their capacity as directors11100%
added matter (art. 100(c) epc) — claim feature introducing concept not supported by parent application constitutes inadmissible generalisation110%
scope of upc revocation can be limited to national parts of upca member states110%
Häufigste zurückgewiesene Argumente
Argumente, die das UPC nicht akzeptiert hat, sortiert nach wiederholten Auftritten in Fällen.
ArgumentParteiFälle
defendant's submission of 31 may 2024 (inadmissible late submission)Beklagter2
lack of inventive step based on 'levi' as closest prior art combined with disclosure of hexagonal cells in heart valvesKläger1
all invalidity grounds raised against amended auxiliary request ii are well-foundedKläger1
late-filed prior art documents mb2 and mb4 should be admitted and undermine inventive stepKläger1
request to amend patent is inadmissible with respect to non-challenged claimsKläger1
new grounds for revocation introduced in reply to defence constitute permissible argumentsKläger1
lack of inventive step over diaz combined with robertsonKläger1
lack of inventive step starting from glejboel combined with diaz and/or robertsonKläger1
revocation of ep 3 646 825 as granted (main request) on grounds of lack of novelty and/or inventive stepKläger1
lack of inventive step of ar ii claims over levi (closest prior art) in combination with teachings about hexagonal cells in heart valvesKläger1
revocation counterclaim against ep 2 223 589 b1 (bed enclosure with lockable sheet metal strip)Beklagter1
personal liability of individual directors (johann and stefan windhager) for costs beyond windhager gmbh's liabilityKläger1
all 16 auxiliary requests (ar1 to ar16) filed by dish technologies to overcome the added matter invalidityBeklagter1
dependent claim 2 (streamlet cache module) survives even if claim 1 is revokedBeklagter1
proceedings should be stayed pending related national revocation actionBeklagter1
auxiliary requests 2–8 render the claimed subject-matter patentableBeklagter1
claim 1 obvious over cross or pan combined with difonzoKläger1
claim 1 obvious over pan combined with common general knowledgeKläger1
auxiliary requests (2)a through (2)d to amend the patent to overcome added matter objectionBeklagter1
ep 3 504 991 b1 lacks novelty over cohenKläger1
claim 1 invalid for lack of inventive stepKläger1
claim 1 lacks novelty over cited prior art range disclosuresKläger1
claim 1 lacks inventive step starting from d14 (float process glass) combined with d16 (refining agents)Kläger1
inventive step challenged by reference to chinese supreme people's court judgment on a related chinese patentKläger1
experimental report d41 relevant to patentability of auxiliary requestsKläger1
Meistzitierter Stand der Technik
Über substanzielle Hauptsachefälle herangezogene Schriften und ihre typische Rolle.
SchriftreferenzVorherrschende RolleFälle
Levi (unspecified publication)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
Fontaine (article)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
WO 2013/012801Hintergrund1
EP 3 205 309Hintergrund1
EP 2 731 552Hintergrund1
MB2 (European patent application published 9 September 2016)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
MB4 (unspecified prior art document)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
Diaz (unspecified publication, liquid drug delivery system)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
Robertson (unspecified publication, container for solid medicaments)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
Glejboel (unspecified publication)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
LeviErfindungsmüh-Kombination1
Fontaine articleErfindungsmüh-Kombination1
WO 2013/012801 (WO '801 / grandparent application)Hintergrund1
GöranssonNeuheitsschädlich1
D46Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
CrossErfindungsmüh-Kombination1
PanErfindungsmüh-Kombination1
DiFonzoErfindungsmüh-Kombination1
CohenNeuheitsschädlich1
Chen (CN 101843368 A)Hintergrund1
Thompson (US 2013/0192617 A1)Hintergrund1
D14Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
D16Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
D19Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
D40 (expert opinion)Hintergrund1