UPC Analytics
DEEN
Analysen91Fälle31Entscheidungen37Richter177Parteien21Kanzleien
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
added matter: subject matter of a patent extending beyond the content of the original parent application renders claims invalid (art. 76(1) epc)110%
added matter assessed against all text, claims, passages and drawings of the parent application individually and in overall context110%
amendment application not addressing the operative revocation ground (added matter) cannot save the patent110%
if the claims relied on in infringement are revoked, the infringement action necessarily fails110%
added matter (lack of original disclosure) is assessed against the parent application as a whole, not just individual passages110%
patent claims invalid for added matter if neither the explicit text nor the drawings of the parent application disclose the claimed feature combination110%
auxiliary requests to amend must address the specific invalidity ground to be relevant110%
where asserted claims are invalid, the infringement action must be dismissed110%
security for costs dismissed where defendant fails to evidence that enforcement against us-based claimant would be unduly burdensome110%
recurring licensing revenues from an npe can negate insolvency risk for security-for-costs purposes110%
mere status as npe insufficient to justify security for costs110%
withdrawal of infringement action permissible before appeal period expires where parties consent and have no legitimate interest in appeal (coa_569/2014 applied)110%
decision on infringement action including costs becomes ineffective upon permitted withdrawal under r. 265 rop110%
upc has no jurisdiction over national patent parts that lapsed before 1 june 2023 or over non-upca member states11100%
prior use right (art. 28 upca / german law) requires proof of firm decision to use before priority date; burden on defendant11100%
prior use right facts must be presented in statement of defence / counterclaim; subsequent briefs limited to responding to reply11100%
maximum daily penalty is appropriate where non-compliance with information obligations is evident, persistent, and the result of deliberate choice11100%
setting of penalties is in the court's interest and not capped by claimant's request11100%
Häufigste zurückgewiesene Argumente
Argumente, die das UPC nicht akzeptiert hat, sortiert nach wiederholten Auftritten in Fällen.
ArgumentParteiFälle
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
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
samsung should be ordered to provide security for costs against headwaterBeklagter1
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
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