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
problem-solution approach for inventive step2250%
withdrawal of action by consent under r. 265.1 rop220%
provisional measures require sufficient certainty of patent validity, not merely the court's own view220%
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%
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%
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%
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%
front-loaded procedure under rop110%
inadmissibility of late new arguments under rule 9.2 rop even on the same broad issue110%
revocation of patent claim as counterclaim defeats infringement action110%
Häufigste zurückgewiesene Argumente
Argumente, die das UPC nicht akzeptiert hat, sortiert nach wiederholten Auftritten in Fällen.
ArgumentParteiFälle
prior use right defense under art. 28 upcaBeklagter2
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
preliminary cost reimbursement order should be granted in preliminary injunction proceedingsKläger1
validity attacks (best three arguments) defeat the patent at pi stageBeklagter1
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
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
new line of arguments on added matter based on different passages of a lengthy document should be admittedKläger1
gillette defence (accused product is prior art or obvious modification thereof, therefore non-infringing)Beklagter1
claim should be limited to the specific shape shown in a particular drawingBeklagter1
right to publication of the decision should be grantedKläger1
lack of inventive step over diaz combined with robertsonKläger1
lack of inventive step starting from glejboel combined with diaz and/or robertsonKläger1
huawei's claims are barred by ieee bylaws / letter of assurance commitments (prohibition on suit)Beklagter1
exhaustion defence applies to all accused product variantsBeklagter1
counterclaim for revocation of ep 2 137 782 should succeedBeklagter1
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
gucci's leather goods (pikarar padlock bag and loafers) infringe claim 1 and claim 10 of agfa's patentKläger1
counterclaim for revocation of the patent should succeedBeklagter1
patent ep 2 548 648 is valid and infringement claims should be upheldKläger1
Meistzitierter Stand der Technik
Über substanzielle Hauptsachefälle herangezogene Schriften und ihre typische Rolle.
SchriftreferenzVorherrschende RolleFälle
D3Neuheitsschädlich2
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
D3 (unspecified publication, shredder/mill technology)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
D9 (unspecified publication, fibrous wood material grinding with oblique ribs/strips)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
US 994Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
D8Neuheitsschädlich1
ITRE 20100070 A1 (D9)Neuheitsschädlich1
LeviErfindungsmüh-Kombination1
Fontaine articleErfindungsmüh-Kombination1
WO 2013/012801 (WO '801 / grandparent application)Hintergrund1
GöranssonNeuheitsschädlich1
D46Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
Levi (Exhibit HLNK 39)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
Alon (Exhibit HLNK 49)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
Fontaine (Exhibit HLNK 25)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
EP 3 583 920 B1 (family member)Hintergrund1