Analytics 24Cases 15Decisions 25Judges 97Parties 19Firms

Filing trends Outcomes Pendency Technology Forum strategy Leading cases Legal issues Security for costs

Legal issues

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

Most-litigated legal principles

Recurring legal principles across 1 cases with reasoning extracted. Success rate counts patentee-favorable outcomes only.

Principle	Cases	Decided	Patentee success
where a defendant uses its website to deny infringement, mandatory publication of the judgment on the defendant's website is justified under art. 80 upca	1	1	100%
r. 36 rop further pleading admission requires timely explanation for why evidence could not have been filed earlier	1	1	100%
epo preliminary opposition opinion may be submitted as publicly available information, but parties cannot expand their arguments around it without r. 36 permission	1	1	100%
feature breakdown of patent claims to be used at oral hearing to be communicated to parties in advance	1	1	100%
recall, removal from channels of commerce, and destruction generally unavailable for products challenged on indirect infringement only	1	1	100%
interim lump-sum damages under r. 119 rop require sufficient factual basis and plausible estimation of specific facts	1	1	100%
revocation claimant must explain prior art content and articulate how the skilled person would combine documents without inventive step; naming documents alone is insufficient	1	1	100%
indirect infringement under art. 26 upca can ground an injunction and removal order even absent direct infringement	1	1	100%
exhaustion under art. 29 upca assessed on specific facts of authorised first placing on market	1	1	100%
partial settlement between claimant and some defendants confirmed under r. 365.1 rop while proceedings against remaining defendants continue	1	1	0%
settlement terms remain confidential under r. 365.2 rop on parties' request	1	1	0%
settling parties bear their own costs under r. 365.4 rop	1	1	0%

Most-rejected arguments

Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.

Argument	Party	Cases
patent ep 3 686 683 b1 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)	Respondent	1
additional test-purchase evidence should be admitted as further pleading under r. 36 rop	Claimant	1
patent ep 2 061 575 b1 lacks inventive step based on named prior art documents (revocation counterclaim)	Respondent	1
recall, removal from channels of commerce, and destruction ordered for indirectly infringing products	Claimant	1
interim award of lump-sum damages (r. 119 rop) without specific factual basis	Claimant	1
exhaustion defence: products supplied by patent holder exhaust patent rights	Respondent	1

Most-cited prior art

References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.

No prior-art data in the current scope.