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 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
| preliminary cost reimbursement order should be granted in preliminary injunction proceedings | Claimant | 1 |
| validity attacks (best three arguments) defeat the patent at pi stage | Respondent | 1 |
| attacked embodiment (speed care hemostatic gauze) contains a binder as required by patent claims | Claimant | 1 |
| burden of proof should be reversed because applicant has provided reasonable indications of infringement | Claimant | 1 |
| leave to appeal the procedural order disregarding late-filed arguments should be granted | Respondent | 1 |
| relying on combinations of claim 1 with sub-claims makes invalidity of claim 1 more likely | Respondent | 1 |
| application for provisional measures for infringement of ep 4 201 327 relating to insulin pump technology | Claimant | 1 |
| security for costs in the amount of eur 200,000 due to risk of inability to enforce cost judgment against a us company | Respondent | 1 |
| application for provisional measures for infringement of patent relating to furniture fittings (height-adjustable leg installation tool) | Claimant | 1 |
| epo examining division's view (expressed during third-party observation proceedings) that d8 did not disclose feature 3.2.2 settles the claim construction question | Claimant | 1 |
| application for information disclosure (sub (b) of the order sought) | Claimant | 1 |
| action is devoid of purpose because defendants already ceased infringement | Respondent | 1 |
| abbott acted with unreasonable delay | Respondent | 1 |
| security for costs of enforcement should be ordered | Respondent | 1 |
| request to order curio bioscience to compensate 10x genomics for reputational and other damages incurred as a result of the proceedings | Respondent | 1 |
| request by 10x genomics for defendant to provide security for anticipated litigation costs | Claimant | 1 |
| direct infringement of device claim established because defendant appropriates downstream customer acts (verlängerte werkbank / extended workbench theory) | Claimant | 1 |
| patent ep 3 866 051 is invalid (validity challenge in pi proceedings) | Respondent | 1 |
| cilag had urgency because it only became aware of the true extent of infringement and market risk (sana acceptance, price erosion risk) in april 2025 | Claimant | 1 |
| david vs. goliath argument: cilag's larger market position vs. rivolution's smaller size creates special urgency | Claimant | 1 |
| applications to submit further evidence after the oral hearing should be admitted | Claimant | 1 |
| preliminary injunction should be granted to prevent imminent infringement of ep 3 805 248 by celltrion's biosimilar | Claimant | 1 |
| valeo lacks entitlement to bring pi proceedings / patent title is manifestly erroneous | Respondent | 1 |
| general revocation rates of patents indicate the patent is more likely than not invalid | Respondent | 1 |
| feature of connector support received through distal-facing opening into recess is supported by multiple passages and figures in the application as filed | Claimant | 1 |
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
| Reference | Predominant role | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| US 994 | Obviousness combination | 1 |
| D8 | Novelty-destroying | 1 |
| ITRE 20100070 A1 (D9) | Novelty-destroying | 1 |
| WO 2011/119896 | Distinguished | 1 |
| US'994 (US patent cited as prior art against EP 4 201 327 claim 1) | Novelty-destroying | 1 |