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.
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
| Argument | Party | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| orbisk's food waste monitoring system infringes ep 3 198 245 | Claimant | 1 |
| r. 190 rop application for document production | Claimant | 1 |
| abm's belated (oral hearing) challenge that jp748 is not a realistic starting point for inventive step | Claimant | 1 |
| dependent claim 2 (adaptive feedback) saves the patent | Claimant | 1 |
| infringement of ep 2 437 696 b2 by philips' sleep therapy devices | Claimant | 1 |
| representative's illness prevented timely filing of sod and re-establishment of rights under r. 320 should be granted | Respondent | 1 |
| default decision should be set aside under r. 356 rop | Respondent | 1 |
| counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement of revised product (new product 2) is admissible | Respondent | 1 |
| patent lacks inventive step / contains added matter (counterclaim for revocation) | Respondent | 1 |
| application to deposit three further physical objects (bb40a-c) as late exhibits | Respondent | 1 |
| invalidity of ep 2 839 083 b9 as originally granted (revocation counterclaim) | Respondent | 1 |
| infringement is impossible due to features outside the patent claim that prevent the patented function from being achieved | Respondent | 1 |
| literal infringement of claim features 1(d)(iii), 1(h), 1(j) and 1(k)(iii) of ep 1 910 572 by hcr products | Claimant | 1 |
| infringement by equivalence for the missing 'non-overlapping' feature 1(h) | Claimant | 1 |
| direct infringement of ep 2 263 098 b1 by google's wi-fi positioning product | Claimant | 1 |
| late indirect infringement auxiliary requests introduced in unsolicited september 2025 submission | Claimant | 1 |
| ep 3 669 828 lacks inventive step and should be revoked | Respondent | 1 |
| cease-and-desist declarations filed by some meril defendants suffice to negate the need for a court injunction | Respondent | 1 |
| literal infringement of the patent on the medical device (sleep apnea treatment) by orthoapnea and vivisol products | Claimant | 1 |
| infringement by equivalence of the same patent claims | Claimant | 1 |
| bioo products do not literally infringe claim 11 of ep 2137782 | Respondent | 1 |
| counterclaim for revocation of ep 2137782 | Respondent | 1 |
| bioo ed and other products are not essential components for the patented method | Respondent | 1 |
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
| Reference | Predominant role | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| JP748 (Japanese patent on position therapy device, circa 1990/1991) | Novelty-destroying | 1 |
| P25 (Handbook of Modern Sensors, 2003) | Background | 1 |
| P28 (textbook for sleep medicine, evidencing accelerometers in wrist actigraphy) | Background | 1 |
| WO 2007/001986 A2 (WO986) — EP572 priority document | Background | 1 |
| D12, D13, D14 (prior art documents referenced in proceedings) | Obviousness combination | 1 |