UPC Analytics
DEEN
Analysen102Fälle69Entscheidungen50Richter220Parteien26Kanzleien
EingangstrendsAusgängeVerfahrensdauerTechnologieForumstrategieLeitentscheidungenRechtsfragenSicherheitsleistung

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
intermediate generalisation as inadmissible extension under art. 123(2) and (3) epc110%
prior art must be in same technical field or one skilled person would consult for the problem posed110%
novelty and inventive step under art. 54 and 56 epc110%
auxiliary requests admissible even if numerous where their core is small110%
patent partially revoked and maintained in amended form (auxiliary requests 1 and 2)110%
urgency for pi requires prompt investigation upon knowledge of infringement110%
three-month delay without significant clarification steps defeats urgency110%
doctrine of equivalents: assessment focuses on how the technical effect is achieved, not merely that an effect is produced110%
description passage identifying acceleration as 'additional' to sound sensing precludes treating acceleration as an equivalent alternative110%
costs of protective letter are 'other costs' of proceedings under art. 69(1) upca110%
a claimant may withdraw an infringement action at any time before a final decision if the defendant has no legitimate interest in continuation (r. 265.1 rop)110%
settlement-based withdrawal is permissible before final decision where defendants have no legitimate interest in continuation (r. 265.1 rop)110%
60% court fee reimbursement applies where action is withdrawn before closure of written procedure (r. 370.9(b)(i); r. 370.11 rop)110%
ce-mark approval for a medical device signals imminent market entry across all eu member states and constitutes an indication of imminent infringement under r. 206.2(c) rop11100%
applicant's prior knowledge of the accused device before ce-mark approval is irrelevant to urgency; the ce mark is the relevant triggering event11100%
ce-mark approval combined with public trade fair announcement and provision of ordering information constitutes 'setting the stage to market' for purposes of imminent infringement11100%
defendants seeking security must substantiate potential damage with specifics including sales price and volume projections11100%
urgency and necessity for provisional measures11100%
preliminary assessment of infringement (more likely than not)11100%
scope of information orders limited to cessation of infringement11100%
Häufigste zurückgewiesene Argumente
Argumente, die das UPC nicht akzeptiert hat, sortiert nach wiederholten Auftritten in Fällen.
ArgumentParteiFälle
patent as granted is valid and infringed by xiaomi's wireless charging productsKläger1
number of auxiliary requests is unduly burdensome on defendantsBeklagter1
connected ball technology infringes the patent by using sensor data to determine ball contactKläger1
infringement by equivalents — accelerometer processing equivalent to sound-signal comparisonKläger1
auxiliary requests based on amended claims (adding acceleration sensing) establish infringementKläger1
security/enforcement bond should be ordered against occlutechBeklagter1
information order extending to prices and numbers of cabinets sold (for damages calculation)Kläger1
barco's delay in filing was not unreasonable given complexity of infringement analysisKläger1
rectification of final order to add the word 'interim' to costs award was warranted under r. 353 ropKläger1
literal infringement of the patent on the medical device (sleep apnea treatment) by orthoapnea and vivisol productsKläger1
infringement by equivalence of the same patent claimsKläger1
bioo products do not literally infringe claim 11 of ep 2137782Beklagter1
counterclaim for revocation of ep 2137782Beklagter1
bioo ed and other products are not essential components for the patented methodBeklagter1
Meistzitierter Stand der Technik
Über substanzielle Hauptsachefälle herangezogene Schriften und ihre typische Rolle.

Keine Daten zum Stand der Technik im aktuellen Geltungsbereich.