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
rebuttable presumption of patent proprietorship under r. 8.5(c) rop	1	1	100%
urgency for pi: no fixed deadline, assessed on totality of applicant's conduct	1	1	100%
general patent revocation rates irrelevant to individual patent validity assessment	1	1	100%
bad faith claim requires prior vindication action by defendant	1	1	100%
weighing of interests in pi proceedings	1	1	100%
urgency and necessity for provisional measures	1	1	100%
preliminary assessment of infringement (more likely than not)	1	1	100%
scope of information orders limited to cessation of infringement	1	1	100%
joint and several liability of defendants for costs	1	1	100%
recall orders as provisional measure	1	1	100%
registered patent proprietor holds strong rebuttable presumption of entitlement in pi proceedings	1	1	100%
urgency in pi proceedings assessed by totality of applicant conduct, not fixed deadline	1	1	100%
validity likelihood assessed on the specific patent only, not general revocation statistics	1	1	100%
failure to bring timely vindication action bars reliance on patentee bad faith in balance of interests	1	1	100%
parties have no right to determine technical background of technically qualified judge; partiality is only valid objection	1	1	100%
r. 353 rop rectification limited to clerical mistakes and obvious slips; cannot correct matters not raised at hearing	1	1	100%

Most-rejected arguments

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

Argument	Party	Cases
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
information order extending to prices and numbers of cabinets sold (for damages calculation)	Claimant	1
applicant acted in bad faith by unlawfully appropriating the patent, warranting denial of pi	Respondent	1
application for rectification: '2 series gran coupé' model omitted from bmw exception list by obvious slip	Respondent	1
review of allocation of technically qualified judge to obtain one with mechanical engineering expertise	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.