UPC Analytics
DEEN
Analysen85Fälle47Entscheidungen32Richter137Parteien14Kanzleien
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
frand11100%
sep infringement — injunction not automatically barred by frand commitment where defendant's counterclaim fails on the merits11100%
no hierarchy between art. 33(1)(a) (infringement locus) and art. 33(1)(b) (domicile) competence grounds110%
competence assessment uses a 'cursory look' standard; comprehensive evidentiary review would improperly anticipate the merits (coa barco v yealink)110%
sufficiently asserting infringement in the relevant contracting state (e.g. via a website directed at european customers including german clients) is enough to establish art. 33(1)(a) competence110%
whether a defendant from a non-contracting state (e.g. bosnia) actually commits infringing acts is a merits question, not a jurisdictional threshold110%
direct infringement of all features of granted/amended claim 1 suffices for injunctive relief11100%
late-filed arguments/evidence at oral hearing may be disregarded11100%
patent upheld in opposition (b2 form) carries persuasive weight in infringement proceedings11100%
injunction conditions include notification and certified translation requirements before enforcement11100%
security is not required where defendants have already ceased infringing conduct and face no material harm from the order11100%
provisional measures may issue on a preliminary assessment of infringement without full determination of merits11100%
where defendant does not substantively contest infringement, validity threshold for provisional measures is met11100%
provisional cost reimbursement under upc provisional measures practice11100%
when assessing costs after separation of proceedings, the entire legal dispute pre-separation must be considered110%
separation must not create an advantage or disadvantage in cost allocation110%
substantiation of infringement required for each territory and each act alleged110%
intertemporal applicability of upca: acts after 1 june 2023 governed by upca; pre-upca acts governed by national law; ongoing acts continuing after 1 june 2023 governed by upca with parties able to invoke favourable national law for earlier acts11100%
right to information (art. 67 upca) extends to pre-entry-into-force periods11100%
non-formalistic assessment of whether infringement acts are 'ongoing' for intertemporal purposes11100%
Häufigste zurückgewiesene Argumente
Argumente, die das UPC nicht akzeptiert hat, sortiert nach wiederholten Auftritten in Fällen.
ArgumentParteiFälle
invalidity counterclaim against ep 2 568 724 b1Beklagter1
frand counterclaim — willingness to take a frand license precluding injunctionBeklagter1
case against sovex (d1) should be transferred to the hague as sovex is domiciled in the netherlandsBeklagter1
art. 33(1)(a) must be interpreted restrictively as a lex specialis requiring a specific territorial connection analogous to cjeu kalfelis restrictive interpretation of art. 7(2) brussels iBeklagter1
cjeu reference on art. 32 upca and art. 71a-71b brussels i is necessaryBeklagter1
counterclaim for revocation: patent lacks validityBeklagter1
alleged disproportionate harm from injunction (late-filed claim about magnitude of damage)Beklagter1
security (sicherheitsleistung) should be required before granting provisional measuresBeklagter1
infringement of ep 2 028 981 in poland, spain and the united kingdom by nuc electronics co., ltd.Kläger1
remaining requests beyond injunction, damages, information, destruction, and recallKläger1
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
defendants' streaming services literally or equivalently infringe ep 2 479 680Kläger1
full revocation of ep 2 479 680 including all auxiliary requestsBeklagter1
late disclosure of video file encoding information should be ordered under r. 191 ropKläger1
counterclaim for revocation of ep 3 511 174Beklagter1
private prior use right under german law (art. 28 upca)Beklagter1
penalties imposed were disproportionate given pending legal questions on upc enforcementBeklagter1
counterclaim for revocation of ep 2 568 724Beklagter1
frand counterclaim: defendants should not be subject to injunction/damages because panasonic failed to offer a frand licenceBeklagter1
Meistzitierter Stand der Technik
Über substanzielle Hauptsachefälle herangezogene Schriften und ihre typische Rolle.
SchriftreferenzVorherrschende RolleFälle
WO [379] (prior art document cited in preparatory order in context of novelty/inventive step)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
EP 452 (prior art document cited in preparatory order for novelty and inventive step analysis)Neuheitsschädlich1
EP 968 (cited in preparatory order for inventive step combination)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1