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
front-loaded procedure under rop110%
inadmissibility of late new arguments under rule 9.2 rop even on the same broad issue110%
revocation of patent claim as counterclaim defeats infringement action110%
claim scope not limited to preferred embodiments11100%
description and drawings as interpretation material, not prior art11100%
gillette defence11100%
purposive claim construction11100%
publication of decision as punitive measure requiring justification beyond injunction11100%
second medical use claims — infringement requires that the alleged infringer offers or places the product on the market in a way that leads or may lead to the claimed therapeutic use110%
second medical use claims — notional novelty under art. 54(5) epc requires a specific use in a method under art. 53(c) epc110%
inventive step — motivation to implement the claimed use may be absent or negated where many uncertainties exist110%
pleading ignorance is inadmissible in upc proceedings110%
purposive claim construction — scope of second medical use claim110%
product-by-process claim construction: technical properties conferred by process are decisive11100%
upc jurisdiction over art. 67 epc compensation for use during application publication period11100%
destruction as corrective measure; software deactivation insufficient unless re-enablement impossible11100%
costs apportionment where both parties partially succeed11100%
rebuttable presumption of patent proprietorship under r. 8.5(c) rop11100%
urgency for pi: no fixed deadline, assessed on totality of applicant's conduct11100%
general patent revocation rates irrelevant to individual patent validity assessment11100%
Häufigste zurückgewiesene Argumente
Argumente, die das UPC nicht akzeptiert hat, sortiert nach wiederholten Auftritten in Fällen.
ArgumentParteiFälle
new line of arguments on added matter based on different passages of a lengthy document should be admittedKläger1
gillette defence (accused product is prior art or obvious modification thereof, therefore non-infringing)Beklagter1
claim should be limited to the specific shape shown in a particular drawingBeklagter1
right to publication of the decision should be grantedKläger1
infringement of the second medical use claim of ep 3 536 712 b1 by amgen's evolocumab product in paediatric patientsKläger1
counterclaim for revocation of ep 3 536 712 b1Beklagter1
patent ep 3 356 109 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)Beklagter1
third-party counterclaim (dritt-widerklage) against alexander christ should succeedBeklagter1
software-based deactivation of infringing function is an alternative to destructionBeklagter1
valeo lacks entitlement to bring pi proceedings / patent title is manifestly erroneousBeklagter1
general revocation rates of patents indicate the patent is more likely than not invalidBeklagter1
patent ep 3 466 498 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation) — novelty and inventive stepBeklagter1
new prior art and new invalidity attacks raised for the first time in the rejoinder to revocation counterclaimBeklagter1
infringement is established: the accused occlusion devices fall within the scope of ep 1 998 686 b2Kläger1
application dismissed in all other aspects against defendant 1Kläger1
remaining aspects of application (not specified in available excerpt)Kläger1
infringement of ep 2 755 901 b1 and/or ep 3 466 498 by defendants' egg packaging productsKläger1
counterclaim for revocation dismissed in remaining parts beyond the partially revoked claimsBeklagter1
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
applicant acted in bad faith by unlawfully appropriating the patent, warranting denial of piBeklagter1
application for rectification: '2 series gran coupé' model omitted from bmw exception list by obvious slipBeklagter1
review of allocation of technically qualified judge to obtain one with mechanical engineering expertiseBeklagter1
patent ep 3 686 683 b1 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)Beklagter1
additional test-purchase evidence should be admitted as further pleading under r. 36 ropKläger1
Meistzitierter Stand der Technik
Über substanzielle Hauptsachefälle herangezogene Schriften und ihre typische Rolle.
SchriftreferenzVorherrschende RolleFälle
D12, D13, D14 (prior art documents referenced in proceedings)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination1