UPC Analytics
DEEN
Analysen120Fälle90Entscheidungen44Richter131Parteien32Kanzleien
EingangstrendsAusgängeVerfahrensdauerTechnologieForumstrategieLeitentscheidungenRechtsfragenSicherheitsleistung

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%
expert/written statements filed as replies to statement of defence are admissible if they constitute justified reactions to new defence arguments11100%
the fact a witness statement was originally drafted for parallel national proceedings does not render it inadmissible11100%
technical findings on infringement: knitted waffle-structure layer constitutes infringement of the protective workwear patent11100%
closure of proceedings by settlement under r. 360 rop110%
60% court fee reimbursement on settlement before close of written procedure (r. 370.9(c)(i))110%
settlement encompasses costs: no separate court costs order where parties have agreed110%
confirmation of settlement as enforceable final decision under art. 79 upca110%
court-facilitated settlement under case management powers (r. 332 rop)110%
publication of redacted settlement only under r. 365 rop110%
court fee reimbursement on settlement not automatic110%
default judgment (contumacia): three conditions required — valid service, failure to comply with a deadline, and facts justifying the relief11100%
non-contestation principle: uncontested facts are deemed proven (r. 171.2 rop) but only against parties who chose to actively defend11100%
service of statement of claim without attachments is valid if the body of the claim gives sufficient understanding (r. 271 rop)11100%
absence/default of defendant is a procedurally neutral circumstance; automatic acceptance of claims is excluded (art. 54 upca)11100%
ex parte provisional measures available where prior notification would defeat the purpose of the relief (r. 206.3(a) rop)11100%
trade fair context creates special urgency justifying ex parte approach11100%
security must be provided by applicant as condition of enforceability (art. 60.5 upca)11100%
merits proceedings must be commenced within 31 calendar days or 20 working days or the order is revocable on respondent's request11100%
ex parte seizure at trade fair granted but ex parte injunction declined — partial ex parte relief based on proportionality11100%
Häufigste zurückgewiesene Argumente
Argumente, die das UPC nicht akzeptiert hat, sortiert nach wiederholten Auftritten in Fällen.
ArgumentParteiFälle
exclusion of expert statements and associated claimant reasoning from proceedingsBeklagter1
60% reimbursement of court fees (eur 6,600) requested by edwards under r. 370.9(c) and 370.11 ropKläger1
injunction (inibitoria) should also be granted ex parteKläger1
ep 2 493 466 (cabazitaxel antitumour use patent) is valid over the prior artKläger1
no auxiliary requests for patent amendment filedKläger1
literal infringement of claim features 1(d)(iii), 1(h), 1(j) and 1(k)(iii) of ep 1 910 572 by hcr productsKläger1
infringement by equivalence for the missing 'non-overlapping' feature 1(h)Kläger1
application to amend the patent (auxiliary requests) should be admittedKläger1
infringement action for ep 2 726 230 b1Kläger1
provisional measures application for preliminary injunction against celltrion entities regarding ep 3 805 248 b1Kläger1
direct infringement of ep 2 746 967 by texas instruments' processors implementing dvfsKläger1
general common knowledge (gck) supports inventive step challenge for claim feature subsetBeklagter1
preliminary injunction against samsung bioepis based on ep 3 167 888 b1Kläger1
preliminary injunction against amgen entities based on ep 3 167 888 b1Kläger1
stay of proceedings pending revocation counterclaim by different defendant in parallel actionBeklagter1
full costs offset in oerlikon's favour should be denied due to oerlikon expanding settlement demands during negotiationsBeklagter1
Meistzitierter Stand der Technik
Über substanzielle Hauptsachefälle herangezogene Schriften und ihre typische Rolle.
SchriftreferenzVorherrschende RolleFälle
NHSC document (clinical/regulatory document disclosing cabazitaxel antitumour use in docetaxel-pretreated patients)Neuheitsschädlich1
WO 2007/001986 A2 (WO986) — EP572 priority documentHintergrund1
Prior use (Girderflex machine) at EUR 2,000,000 price pointNeuheitsschädlich1