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
urgency / undue delay standard for provisional measures (two months presumptively acceptable)11100%
claim interpretation using description and drawings under art. 69 epc and coa principles11100%
summary validity assessment at pi stage limited to best three invalidity arguments11100%
provisional cost reimbursement requires special grounds (e.g., insolvency risk)11100%
anti-anti-suit injunction (aasi) / anti-enforcement injunction (aei) jurisdiction at upc11100%
eu charter right to access to justice (art. 47)11100%
foreign anti-enforcement injunctions as unlawful acts under german law11100%
frand / sep context for access to justice protection11100%
frand defence in sep infringement actions11100%
huawei v. zte framework (cjeu) for sep injunctions11100%
exhaustion of patent rights11100%
pool license as a permissible frand licensing pathway11100%
implementer must make concrete counter-offer and provide security to raise frand defence11100%
front-loaded procedure / withdrawal from opt-out via cms workflow11100%
upc jurisdiction over pre-upca infringement acts11100%
bifurcation and referral of counterclaim for revocation to central division11100%
stay of infringement proceedings post-central division decision limited to exceptional circumstances11100%
pan-upc injunctive relief under art. 34 upca upon proof of infringement in one contracting member state11100%
third-party and public interests considered in scope of corrective measures under art. 64(4) upca11100%
claimant's choice among competent german local divisions determines competence11100%
Häufigste zurückgewiesene Argumente
Argumente, die das UPC nicht akzeptiert hat, sortiert nach wiederholten Auftritten in Fällen.
ArgumentParteiFälle
preliminary cost reimbursement order should be granted in preliminary injunction proceedingsKläger1
validity attacks (best three arguments) defeat the patent at pi stageBeklagter1
huawei's claims are barred by ieee bylaws / letter of assurance commitments (prohibition on suit)Beklagter1
exhaustion defence applies to all accused product variantsBeklagter1
stay of infringement proceedings warranted because central division paris decision was manifestly and prima facie erroneous for failing to consider key invalidity argumentsBeklagter1
patent ep 3 646 825 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)Beklagter1
direct infringement of device claim established because defendant appropriates downstream customer acts (verlängerte werkbank / extended workbench theory)Kläger1
patent ep 3 866 051 is invalid (validity challenge in pi proceedings)Beklagter1
application for seizure of goods should be maintained in fullKläger1
d7 (new prior art) submitted with written submission of 15 march 2024 admitted to revocation proceedingsBeklagter1
revocation counterclaims — patent invalidBeklagter1
ep 3 350 592 as granted is validKläger1
auxiliary requests 1 and 2 are validKläger1
auxiliary requests for provisional measures based on amended claim versions should be admittedKläger1
preliminary cost reimbursement of eur 168,000 should be granted to respondentBeklagter1
applications to amend the patent (auxiliary requests) should cure the added-matter defectBeklagter1
claims 1 and 11 of ep 3 972 309 are infringed by asus devicesKläger1
aorticlab's device infringes ep 2 129 425 because irregular patent-compliant use by medical professionals constitutes infringementKläger1
private prior use right (in de, fr, it, ro) precludes infringement findingBeklagter1
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
claims 1 and 11 are supported by the parent application and do not go beyond its contentKläger1
auxiliary requests to amend the patent should cure the added-matter defectKläger1
ep 2 493 466 (cabazitaxel antitumour use patent) is valid over the prior artKläger1
no auxiliary requests for patent amendment filedKläger1
Meistzitierter Stand der Technik
Über substanzielle Hauptsachefälle herangezogene Schriften und ihre typische Rolle.
SchriftreferenzVorherrschende RolleFälle
Levi (Exhibit HLNK 39)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
Alon (Exhibit HLNK 49)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
Fontaine (Exhibit HLNK 25)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
EP 3 583 920 B1 (family member)Hintergrund1
D7 (unspecified late-filed document)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
NHSC document (clinical/regulatory document disclosing cabazitaxel antitumour use in docetaxel-pretreated patients)Neuheitsschädlich1
prior public use / offenkundige Vorbenutzung of sintered metal preparation by VibrantzNeuheitsschädlich1
ZP8-ZP9 (late-filed documents admitted in response to AR1-24)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
D3Neuheitsschädlich1