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
temporal urgency for provisional measures under r. 211.4 rop110%
urgency assessed from when applicant knew or should have known of infringement110%
delay in analysing known facts cannot revive urgency110%
costs follow the event in pi proceedings110%
added matter: claimed feature must be directly and unambiguously derivable from application as filed110%
balance of probabilities test for validity in pi proceedings110%
costs follow the event in pi proceedings even without main proceedings110%
all dependent claims fall with the same added-matter defect as independent claim110%
cost allocation where patent valid only in non-asserted amended form: patentee bears revocation costs110%
compensation of costs where counter-claimant sought revocation of non-asserted claims that were upheld110%
partial revocation maintains patent in amended claim form under art. 65 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%
declaration of 'goods suspected of infringing' under eu customs regulation 608/2013 is not available as a provisional measure11100%
information orders in pi proceedings are limited to distribution channels and origins; financial data (pricing, volumes) is premature as it relates to damages11100%
independent co-defendants are not subject to joint and several liability for pi compliance orders11100%
purposive claim construction of display features: elements appearing on the same screen are not necessarily 'within' a specific sub-region of the display110%
non-infringement finding renders it unnecessary to assess validity arguments110%
applicant in failed pi proceedings may be ordered to pay interim cost award (r. 211.1(d) rop)110%
urgency and necessity for provisional measures11100%
preliminary assessment of infringement (more likely than not)11100%
Häufigste zurückgewiesene Argumente
Argumente, die das UPC nicht akzeptiert hat, sortiert nach wiederholten Auftritten in Fällen.
ArgumentParteiFälle
cilag had urgency because it only became aware of the true extent of infringement and market risk (sana acceptance, price erosion risk) in april 2025Kläger1
david vs. goliath argument: cilag's larger market position vs. rivolution's smaller size creates special urgencyKläger1
applications to submit further evidence after the oral hearing should be admittedKläger1
feature of connector support received through distal-facing opening into recess is supported by multiple passages and figures in the application as filedKläger1
provisional reimbursement of costs ordered in favour of applicantKläger1
orbisk's food waste monitoring system infringes ep 3 198 245Kläger1
r. 190 rop application for document productionKläger1
declaration that glucomen ican is 'goods suspected of infringing an ip right' under eu regulation 608/2013 should be granted as a provisional measureKläger1
information order should include price, sales numbers, and cost dataKläger1
information disclosure should be subject to confidentialityBeklagter1
glucomen ican infringes claim 1 (feature 1.13(c)) because the event icons appear on the same screen as the timeline graphKläger1
information order extending to prices and numbers of cabinets sold (for damages calculation)Kläger1
60% reimbursement of court fees (eur 6,600) requested by edwards under r. 370.9(c) and 370.11 ropKläger1
abm's belated (oral hearing) challenge that jp748 is not a realistic starting point for inventive stepKläger1
dependent claim 2 (adaptive feedback) saves the patentKläger1
infringement of ep 2 437 696 b2 by philips' sleep therapy devicesKläger1
representative's illness prevented timely filing of sod and re-establishment of rights under r. 320 should be grantedBeklagter1
default decision should be set aside under r. 356 ropBeklagter1
counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement of revised product (new product 2) is admissibleBeklagter1
patent lacks inventive step / contains added matter (counterclaim for revocation)Beklagter1
application to deposit three further physical objects (bb40a-c) as late exhibitsBeklagter1
invalidity of ep 2 839 083 b9 as originally granted (revocation counterclaim)Beklagter1
infringement is impossible due to features outside the patent claim that prevent the patented function from being achievedBeklagter1
requested case value of eur 500,000 for determining recoverable-costs ceilingKläger1
literal infringement of claim features 1(d)(iii), 1(h), 1(j) and 1(k)(iii) of ep 1 910 572 by hcr productsKläger1
Meistzitierter Stand der Technik
Über substanzielle Hauptsachefälle herangezogene Schriften und ihre typische Rolle.
SchriftreferenzVorherrschende RolleFälle
WO 2011/119896Abgegrenzt1
JP748 (Japanese patent on position therapy device, circa 1990/1991)Neuheitsschädlich1
P25 (Handbook of Modern Sensors, 2003)Hintergrund1
P28 (textbook for sleep medicine, evidencing accelerometers in wrist actigraphy)Hintergrund1
WO 2007/001986 A2 (WO986) — EP572 priority documentHintergrund1
D12, D13, D14 (prior art documents referenced in proceedings)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1