UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics15Cases10Decisions20Judges70Parties7Firms
Filing trendsOutcomesPendencyTechnologyForum strategyLeading casesLegal issuesSecurity for costs

Legal issues

Cross-cutting view of legal principles, recurring arguments, and the prior art the court relies on.

CategoryinfringementClear all
Most-litigated legal principles
Recurring legal principles across 1 cases with reasoning extracted. Success rate counts patentee-favorable outcomes only.
PrincipleCasesDecidedPatentee success
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%
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%
problem-solution approach to inventive step under epo case law applied by upc110%
invalidity attack based on art. 138(1)(e) epc inadmissible under applicable national law110%
security for costs for us-based non-practicing entity under r. 158 rop110%
us bank guarantee not adequate security; deposit required110%
late-filed prior art documents admissible in response to auxiliary requests110%
cancellation of second oral hearing upon finding all forms of patent invalid110%
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%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
new line of arguments on added matter based on different passages of a lengthy document should be admittedClaimant1
case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over non-eu defendants (zhejiang geely holding group and geely automobile holdings ltd.)Respondent1
business relationship under art. 33(1)(b) requires direct commercial ties between all defendants across different brand groups within the geely conglomerateRespondent1
the patent as amended (auxiliary requests ar1-ar1-24) should be maintained as validClaimant1
security for costs should be set at no more than eur 100,000 and may be provided by a us bank guaranteeClaimant1
the written witness statement of dr. raleigh qualifies as a full witness statement under r. 175 ropClaimant1
samsung should be ordered to provide security for costs against headwaterRespondent1
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
ReferencePredominant roleCases
ZP8-ZP9 (late-filed documents admitted in response to AR1-24)Obviousness combination1