UPC Analytics
DEEN
Analysen105Fälle43Entscheidungen48Richter167Parteien24Kanzleien
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
burden of proof for infringement lies with applicant110%
reversal of burden of proof requires reasonable prior indications of infringement110%
infringement must be established before validity and other pi requirements are assessed110%
expert/written statements filed as replies to statement of defence are admissible if they constitute justified reactions to new defence arguments11100%
the fact a witness statement was originally drafted for parallel national proceedings does not render it inadmissible11100%
technical findings on infringement: knitted waffle-structure layer constitutes infringement of the protective workwear patent11100%
temporal urgency for provisional measures under r. 211.4 rop110%
urgency assessed from when applicant knew or should have known of infringement110%
delay in analysing known facts cannot revive urgency110%
costs follow the event in pi proceedings110%
settlement-based withdrawal is permissible before final decision (r. 265 rop)110%
60% court fee reimbursement applies where action is withdrawn before closure of written procedure (r. 370.11; r. 370.9(b)(i) rop)110%
court may confirm a settlement and render it enforceable as a final decision (art. 79 upca; r. 365 rop)110%
settlement details may be kept confidential by court order (r. 365.2-365.3 rop; r. 262.2 rop)110%
upc jurisdiction regardless of defendant's domicile (art. 71b(2) upca)11100%
anchor defendant and close connection under art. 8(1) brussels i recast11100%
eu authorized representative as intermediary under art. 63(1) upca11100%
eu authorized representative as anchor defendant in patent infringement proceedings11100%
plausible allegation of infringing acts required for national part jurisdiction11100%
no enforcement security required where applicant is a well-known manufacturer11100%
Häufigste zurückgewiesene Argumente
Argumente, die das UPC nicht akzeptiert hat, sortiert nach wiederholten Auftritten in Fällen.
ArgumentParteiFälle
attacked embodiment (speed care hemostatic gauze) contains a binder as required by patent claimsKläger1
burden of proof should be reversed because applicant has provided reasonable indications of infringementKläger1
exclusion of expert statements and associated claimant reasoning from proceedingsBeklagter1
cilag had urgency because it only became aware of the true extent of infringement and market risk (sana acceptance, price erosion risk) in april 2025Kläger1
david vs. goliath argument: cilag's larger market position vs. rivolution's smaller size creates special urgencyKläger1
applications to submit further evidence after the oral hearing should be admittedKläger1
application for provisional measures as to remaining embodiments (second group of attacked products)Kläger1
international jurisdiction for spanish national part of defendant 4 (dreame technology ab)Kläger1
abm's belated (oral hearing) challenge that jp748 is not a realistic starting point for inventive stepKläger1
dependent claim 2 (adaptive feedback) saves the patentKläger1
infringement of ep 2 437 696 b2 by philips' sleep therapy devicesKläger1
Meistzitierter Stand der Technik
Über substanzielle Hauptsachefälle herangezogene Schriften und ihre typische Rolle.
SchriftreferenzVorherrschende RolleFälle
JP748 (Japanese patent on position therapy device, circa 1990/1991)Neuheitsschädlich1
P25 (Handbook of Modern Sensors, 2003)Hintergrund1
P28 (textbook for sleep medicine, evidencing accelerometers in wrist actigraphy)Hintergrund1