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
art. 33(1)(a) upca interpreted consistently with art. 7(2) brussels i recast (place of harmful event)110%
online purchase and delivery of infringing product in a member state establishes jurisdiction of that state's local division110%
frand issues can be dealt with incidentally by upc in an infringement action110%
admissibility of frand main claim (not merely defence) deferred to main proceedings under r. 20.2 rop110%
upc jurisdiction covers sep infringement actions including conditional frand injunction claims110%
independent process claim does not limit scope of independent product claim unless patent specification explicitly links process features to product characteristics11100%
manufacturing injunction may cover products currently made outside contracting states by third parties11100%
purposive claim construction: scope of device claim determined by its structural features, not by unclaimed functions described elsewhere in the specification11100%
device claim scope covers structural embodiments even where claimed function is not fully realised (inferior embodiments)110%
in pi proceedings, once respondent specifically contests infringement allegations, applicant must rebut with facts establishing infringement to the required degree of certainty; expert evidence is generally unavailable110%
burden of proof for patent invalidity in pi proceedings rests with respondent110%
when parties submit conflicting translations of prior art, the respondent bears the burden of substantiating its preferred translation110%
urgency in pi proceedings assessed holistically; reasonable delay for investigation and targeted trade fair confirmation does not defeat urgency110%
problem-solution approach to inventive step11100%
hindsight in selection of closest prior art starting point11100%
interdependency of claim features in objective problem formulation11100%
disclosure of numerical ranges and novelty11100%
purposive non-use of a component as a technical feature distinguishing over prior art11100%
reasonable expectation of success11100%
motivation and pointer in inventive step assessment11100%
Häufigste zurückgewiesene Argumente
Argumente, die das UPC nicht akzeptiert hat, sortiert nach wiederholten Auftritten in Fällen.
ArgumentParteiFälle
upc lacks jurisdiction because sun patent trust seeks a frand ruling as its main claim, which falls outside upc jurisdictionBeklagter1
paris local division lacks internal competence because no defendant is domiciled in franceBeklagter1
infringement is established: the accused occlusion devices fall within the scope of ep 1 998 686 b2Kläger1
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
main request (granted claims) should be maintained in fullBeklagter1
auxiliary request i is allowableBeklagter1
auxiliary request ii is allowableBeklagter1
composition claims are novel and inventive as drafted with numerical ranges of ingredientsBeklagter1
application to amend the patent (unconditional and subsequent auxiliary requests)Beklagter1
english is the commonly used language in the relevant field of technology, justifying language changeBeklagter1
nvidia is significantly impaired in organising its defence in germanBeklagter1
inventive step attack based on documents already in the proceedings, raised for the first time at oral hearingBeklagter1
counterclaim for revocation: ep 2 476 814 b1 is invalidBeklagter1
remaining requests in the infringement actionKläger1
the patent as amended (auxiliary requests ar1-ar1-24) should be maintained as validKläger1
security for costs should be set at no more than eur 100,000 and may be provided by a us bank guaranteeKläger1
the written witness statement of dr. raleigh qualifies as a full witness statement under r. 175 ropKläger1
publication of the judgment in trade press should be orderedKläger1
patent is invalid due to added matter (überschreitung der ursprungsoffenbarung)Beklagter1
security for costs should be ordered against 10x genomics in the provisional measures proceedingsBeklagter1
ep 3 666 797 b1 main request and all 17 auxiliary requests are valid and inventiveBeklagter1
literal infringement of the patent on the medical device (sleep apnea treatment) by orthoapnea and vivisol productsKläger1
Meistzitierter Stand der Technik
Über substanzielle Hauptsachefälle herangezogene Schriften und ihre typische Rolle.
SchriftreferenzVorherrschende RolleFälle
D14Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
D16Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
D19Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
D40 (expert opinion)Hintergrund1
D41 (experimental report)Hintergrund1
D42-D45 (Chinese court judgment)Hintergrund1
ZP8-ZP9 (late-filed documents admitted in response to AR1-24)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
prior art starting points in the anti-PCSK9 antibody field (multiple realistic starting points identified by Central Division)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1