UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics5Cases11Decisions8Judges14Parties6Firms
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.

Categoryprovisional_measuresClear all
Most-litigated legal principles
Recurring legal principles across 1 cases with reasoning extracted. Success rate counts patentee-favorable outcomes only.
PrincipleCasesDecidedPatentee success
independent process claim does not limit scope of independent product claim unless patent specification explicitly links process features to product characteristics11100%
manufacturing injunction may cover products currently made outside contracting states by third parties11100%
purposive claim construction: scope of device claim determined by its structural features, not by unclaimed functions described elsewhere in the specification11100%
device claim scope covers structural embodiments even where claimed function is not fully realised (inferior embodiments)110%
in pi proceedings, once respondent specifically contests infringement allegations, applicant must rebut with facts establishing infringement to the required degree of certainty; expert evidence is generally unavailable110%
burden of proof for patent invalidity in pi proceedings rests with respondent110%
when parties submit conflicting translations of prior art, the respondent bears the burden of substantiating its preferred translation110%
urgency in pi proceedings assessed holistically; reasonable delay for investigation and targeted trade fair confirmation does not defeat urgency110%
deemed service under r. 275.2 rop applies in pi proceedings when hague convention service through foreign central authority stalls for months without progress11100%
the six-month formal waiting period under art. 15(2) hague convention cannot apply without restriction in urgent pi proceedings (art. 15(3) hague convention recognised)11100%
where a chinese defendant fails to lodge an objection following deemed service, the court may proceed to determine the pi on the merits11100%
deemed good service under r. 275.2 rop where hague convention service fails11100%
art. 15(2) hague convention six-month period inapplicable without restriction in pi proceedings11100%
decision on pi application based on applicant's submissions alone where defendant fails to object11100%
effective judicial protection requires alternative service options where formal service is futile11100%
pi proceedings: regular order rather than default decision where defendant was given opportunity to respond11100%
non-appearance at oral hearing in pi proceedings: merits decision not limited to default judgment11100%
duty to substantively contest specific factual allegations under r. 171.2 rop11100%
general denial insufficient where applicant provides specific supporting facts11100%
contested facts deemed undisputed if defendant fails to specifically deny them11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
infringement is established: the accused occlusion devices fall within the scope of ep 1 998 686 b2Claimant1
application dismissed in all other aspects against defendant 1Claimant1
remaining aspects of application (not specified in available excerpt)Claimant1
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.