UPC Analytics
DEEN
Analysen129Fälle31Entscheidungen35Richter265Parteien34Kanzleien
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
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60% court fee reimbursement applies where action is withdrawn before closure of written procedure (r. 370.9(b)(i); r. 370.11 rop)110%
mathematical identity of results does not establish infringement; actual method configuration is decisive110%
late-filed arguments at oral hearing excluded under r. 9.2 rop110%
indirect infringement requires showing the product is suitable and intended for the patented use110%
claim scope limited by the patent's own description disclosing insufficiently stable reference genes as non-qualifying110%
language of proceedings fairness assessment requires consideration of all circumstances, not only language of patent110%
domicile of parties in countries where the chosen language is official is a decisive factor against language change110%
size and financial resources of parties are relevant to balancing interests in language change applications110%
fair access to justice for medium-sized enterprises is an objective of the upca110%
withdrawal of action permitted where no legitimate interest of defendants in a court decision exists110%
settlement between claimant and principal defendant justifies withdrawal as against all defendants110%
60% court fee reimbursement where withdrawal before closure of written procedure (r. 370.9(b)(i))110%
parties may agree each bears own extrajudicial costs; court gives effect to such agreement110%
purpose indications in device claims define suitability for the stated function, not actual use11100%
for novelty with a purpose-limited device claim, prior art must disclose a device having all structural features and be suitable for the purpose (or require modification to be suitable)11100%
exhaustion under art. 29 upca extends to normal maintenance and repair, but not to re-manufacture of the patented product11100%
re-manufacture vs. repair test: whether the replacement preserves the identity of the specific patented product placed on the market11100%
where patentee defends only via auxiliary requests, no obligation to examine partial invalidity of originally-granted claims11100%
auxiliary claim sets must each contain all independent claims in allowable form to support maintenance on that auxiliary request11100%
Häufigste zurückgewiesene Argumente
Argumente, die das UPC nicht akzeptiert hat, sortiert nach wiederholten Auftritten in Fällen.
ArgumentParteiFälle
accused test kits directly infringe claim 1 because the average normalization is mathematically identical to successive per-gene normalizationKläger1
indirect infringement: the test kit is suitable and intended for the patented method using oaz1 alone as reference geneKläger1
genes calm2 and rpl37a can serve as further reference genes under the patent's multi-reference-gene readingKläger1
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
exhaustion: defendants' filter cartridges are legitimately supplied replacement parts for products placed on market by britaBeklagter1
patent claims as originally granted are valid (revocation counterclaim)Beklagter1
where patentee defends only via auxiliary requests (amended claims), court must first consider whether original claims are partially invalid under art. 65(3) upcaBeklagter1
nst as a us-based npe should be ordered to provide eur 200,000 security for costsBeklagter1
Meistzitierter Stand der Technik
Über substanzielle Hauptsachefälle herangezogene Schriften und ihre typische Rolle.

Keine Daten zum Stand der Technik im aktuellen Geltungsbereich.