UPC Analytics
DEEN
Analysen97Fälle40Entscheidungen40Richter54Parteien30Kanzleien
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
common general knowledge definition: information commonly known from written sources or practical experience in the relevant technical field11100%
cgk does not necessarily include all publicly available knowledge11100%
problem-solution approach applied: skilled person must have motivation to consult prior art from a different technical field11100%
power consumption constraints relevant to assessing whether cross-field combination is obvious11100%
non-appearance at oral hearing in pi proceedings: merits decision not limited to default judgment11100%
duty to substantively contest specific factual allegations under r. 171.2 rop11100%
general denial insufficient where applicant provides specific supporting facts11100%
contested facts deemed undisputed if defendant fails to specifically deny them11100%
doctrine of equivalents requires technical-functional equivalence: substitute means must fulfil essentially the same function to achieve essentially the same effect110%
front-loaded upc procedure requires parties to submit all facts and evidence as early as possible (r. 25.1 rop; preamble rop 7)110%
timeliness of prior-art evidence: late submission requires reasonable justification110%
a commercial brochure is evaluated as a stand-alone document; the physical product it advertises is not its disclosure110%
authentic text of a european patent is the language of grant (art. 70(1) epc) regardless of the language of proceedings110%
defendant's alternative request for partial maintenance without specifying a particular claim is admissible and obliges the court to examine which dependent claims remain valid (art. 65(3) upca)110%
dependent claims can acquire independent validity in combination with an invalid independent claim110%
common general knowledge of on/off switches and activation buttons in electronic devices supports obviousness of such features110%
front-loaded procedure: claimant in revocation must specify all invalidity grounds and prior art in the statement of revocation; new grounds and novelty-destroying documents may not be introduced in subsequent briefs unless responsive to defendant's defence110%
proportionality and procedural efficiency: parties should not be burdened with overly detailed allegations of undisputed matters110%
patent specification or published patent application can indicate common general knowledge when the author states the teaching is widely known110%
partial maintenance request must be substantiated and reasonable in number; bare unsubstantiated reference to combinations is insufficient (r.30(1)(c), r.50(2) rop)110%
Häufigste zurückgewiesene Argumente
Argumente, die das UPC nicht akzeptiert hat, sortiert nach wiederholten Auftritten in Fällen.
ArgumentParteiFälle
defendant's submission of 31 may 2024 (inadmissible late submission)Beklagter2
claim 1 obvious over cross or pan combined with difonzoKläger1
claim 1 obvious over pan combined with common general knowledgeKläger1
remaining aspects of application (not specified in available excerpt)Kläger1
accused 'tray2go' product infringes the patent under the doctrine of equivalents via variant a (gradual transgression of second stiffening portion)Kläger1
physical product obtained from a commercial brochure can establish the brochure's prior-art disclosureBeklagter1
claims should be construed based on english translation rather than the german-language authentic textKläger1
patent should be maintained as granted (claim 1 valid)Beklagter1
auxiliary requests to amend the patent overcome invalidity of claim 1Beklagter1
dependent claims 2, 3, 4 and 5 have independent validityBeklagter1
patent valid: claim 1 and all dependent claims are not obviousBeklagter1
partial maintenance: patent should be maintained to the extent of one or more dependent claims in combination with claim 1 of proposed amendmentsBeklagter1
auxiliary requests iia, viia, viiia, ixa and xiia filed on 13 november 2024Beklagter1
patent valid as granted: claim 1 meets clarity and added matter requirementsBeklagter1
thirteen auxiliary requests (including conditional request (2)d. for 'one or more dependent claims as granted in combination with claim 1 of auxiliary request 1')Beklagter1
Meistzitierter Stand der Technik
Über substanzielle Hauptsachefälle herangezogene Schriften und ihre typische Rolle.
SchriftreferenzVorherrschende RolleFälle
CrossErfindungsmüh-Kombination1
PanErfindungsmüh-Kombination1
DiFonzoErfindungsmüh-Kombination1
Pan (prior art document — e-cigarette/vaporizer with airflow sensor activation)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
Cross (prior art document — vaporizer device with microcontroller and user activation switch)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
Griffith (prior art document — electronic smoking device with pushbutton activation)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1
Pan (prior art document — vaporizer/e-cigarette with airflow sensor and liquid)Neuheitsschädlich1