UPC Analytics
DEEN
Analysen34Fälle37Entscheidungen28Richter104Parteien44Kanzleien
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
validity burden in provisional measures proceedings11100%
holding company / parent company liability for patent infringement11100%
preclusion of late-filed arguments under rule 9.2 rop11100%
leave to appeal procedural orders under rule 220.2 rop11100%
front-loaded procedure11100%
prior use right under art. 28 upca is governed by national law of each upca member state and must be pleaded country-by-country11100%
right to information under art. 68(3) upca and r. 191 rop covers cost factors used in profit calculation and supporting documents (invoices / delivery notes) but not full book inspection in infringement proceedings11100%
book inspection (offenlegung der bücher) only available in damages quantification proceedings, not infringement proceedings11100%
recall and permanent removal from distribution channels are distinct, independent remedies11100%
retrospective time extension must be sought no later than simultaneously with the submission in question11100%
register presumption — registration as proprietor creates rebuttable presumption of entitlement; burden shifts to defendant11100%
stated purposes in patent claims define scope — product must be designed to be usable for the stated purpose11100%
knowledge of infringement — grossly negligent ignorance or wilful blindness equivalent to actual knowledge; patent holder must investigate upon becoming aware of specific circumstances11100%
security for costs — in urgent provisional measure proceedings not available for litigation costs on defendant's application11100%
purposive claim construction of 'decoupling element'110%
front-loaded proceedings prohibit strategic new attacks at oral hearing110%
costs follow the event per art. 69(1) upca; split where each party succeeds on part110%
imminent infringement characterised by preparations fully completed and infringement only awaiting action110%
r. 295 rop stay of proceedings does not apply to pi proceedings110%
claim interpretation mandatory for court and parties; technical argumentation must be focused and precise in pi proceedings110%
Häufigste zurückgewiesene Argumente
Argumente, die das UPC nicht akzeptiert hat, sortiert nach wiederholten Auftritten in Fällen.
ArgumentParteiFälle
leave to appeal the procedural order disregarding late-filed arguments should be grantedBeklagter1
relying on combinations of claim 1 with sub-claims makes invalidity of claim 1 more likelyBeklagter1
prior use right defense under art. 28 upcaBeklagter1
right to inspection of books (offenlegung der bücher) in the infringement proceedingsKläger1
retrospective extension of time limit for procedural submissionsBeklagter1
request to order curio bioscience to compensate 10x genomics for reputational and other damages incurred as a result of the proceedingsBeklagter1
request by 10x genomics for defendant to provide security for anticipated litigation costsKläger1
defendants' led power supply products infringe ep 2 011 218 b1Kläger1
patent ep 2 011 218 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)Beklagter1
preliminary injunction should be granted to prevent imminent infringement of ep 3 805 248 by celltrion's biosimilarKläger1
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
Meistzitierter Stand der Technik
Über substanzielle Hauptsachefälle herangezogene Schriften und ihre typische Rolle.

Keine Daten zum Stand der Technik im aktuellen Geltungsbereich.