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
withdrawal of infringement action permissible with defendant's consent under r. 265 rop110%
no costs order necessary where parties jointly declare an out-of-court agreement renders costs decision unnecessary110%
business relationship under art. 33(1)(b) upca: membership in the same corporate group with aligned commercial activities (r&d, manufacturing, sales of the same products) is sufficient110%
same infringement allegation does not require complete identity of infringing acts; aligned/parallel acts directed at the same objective suffice110%
non-eu-domiciled parent companies do not independently ground jurisdiction under art. 33(1)(b); jurisdiction flows from eu-domiciled subsidiaries110%
jurisdictional assessment at the preliminary stage uses a 'cursory look' standard without pre-judging the merits110%
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%
withdrawal of provisional measures application permitted where respondent has no legitimate interest in a decision110%
r. 265.1 applies to provisional measures applications by analogy110%
r. 370.9(b)(i) reimbursement rule applies by analogy to withdrawal of provisional measures before closure of written procedure110%
parties may agree to bear own costs in settlement; court gives effect to this agreement in cost decision110%
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%
substantive necessity for provisional measures: applicant must specifically demonstrate why main proceedings are insufficient to remedy the harm110%
court may dismiss provisional measures application without oral hearing when applicant indicates no further hearing is needed110%
Häufigste zurückgewiesene Argumente
Argumente, die das UPC nicht akzeptiert hat, sortiert nach wiederholten Auftritten in Fällen.
ArgumentParteiFälle
case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over non-eu defendants (zhejiang geely holding group and geely automobile holdings ltd.)Beklagter1
business relationship under art. 33(1)(b) requires direct commercial ties between all defendants across different brand groups within the geely conglomerateBeklagter1
remaining aspects of application (not specified in available excerpt)Kläger1
security (sicherheitsleistung) should be required before granting provisional measuresBeklagter1
market saturation from infringing products and long-term customer lock-in create irreparable harm justifying provisional measuresKläger1
ongoing tenders in italy creating long-term binding commitments justify urgent provisional measuresKläger1
patent ep 2 061 575 b1 lacks inventive step based on named prior art documents (revocation counterclaim)Beklagter1
recall, removal from channels of commerce, and destruction ordered for indirectly infringing productsKläger1
interim award of lump-sum damages (r. 119 rop) without specific factual basisKläger1
exhaustion defence: products supplied by patent holder exhaust patent rightsBeklagter1
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
publication of the judgment in trade press should be orderedKläger1
patent is invalid due to added matter (überschreitung der ursprungsoffenbarung)Beklagter1
all auxiliary requests to amend the patent to overcome the added-matter objectionKläger1
infringement of ep 3 223 320 by expert e-commerce and expert klein for led productsKläger1
a defendant that did not file its own revocation counterclaim can still benefit from invalidity arguments in its defenceBeklagter1
Meistzitierter Stand der Technik
Über substanzielle Hauptsachefälle herangezogene Schriften und ihre typische Rolle.

Keine Daten zum Stand der Technik im aktuellen Geltungsbereich.