UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics6Cases7Decisions10Judges12Parties3Firms
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
rebuttable presumption of patent proprietorship under r. 8.5(c) rop11100%
urgency for pi: no fixed deadline, assessed on totality of applicant's conduct11100%
general patent revocation rates irrelevant to individual patent validity assessment11100%
bad faith claim requires prior vindication action by defendant11100%
weighing of interests in pi proceedings11100%
urgency for provisional measures: delay in filing after knowledge of infringement may defeat urgency110%
conditions for provisional measures are cumulative; lack of urgency alone defeats the application110%
brussels i regulation amendments govern international jurisdiction only, not internal upc territorial competence under art. 33 upca110%
art. 33(1) upca lists alternative competences without hierarchical preference between sub-paragraphs (a) and (b)110%
earliest upc jurisdiction date is the grant date of the european patent, not the unitary effect registration date110%
r. 353 rop rectification grounds are exhaustive: only clerical errors, miscalculations, and obvious omissions qualify110%
a decision must be read as a whole including its reasoning; the substantive operative part and the motivational grounds are equally part of the order110%
registered patent proprietor holds strong rebuttable presumption of entitlement in pi proceedings11100%
urgency in pi proceedings assessed by totality of applicant conduct, not fixed deadline11100%
validity likelihood assessed on the specific patent only, not general revocation statistics11100%
failure to bring timely vindication action bars reliance on patentee bad faith in balance of interests11100%
parties have no right to determine technical background of technically qualified judge; partiality is only valid objection11100%
r. 353 rop rectification limited to clerical mistakes and obvious slips; cannot correct matters not raised at hearing11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
valeo lacks entitlement to bring pi proceedings / patent title is manifestly erroneousRespondent1
general revocation rates of patents indicate the patent is more likely than not invalidRespondent1
barco's delay in filing was not unreasonable given complexity of infringement analysisClaimant1
rectification of final order to add the word 'interim' to costs award was warranted under r. 353 ropClaimant1
applicant acted in bad faith by unlawfully appropriating the patent, warranting denial of piRespondent1
application for rectification: '2 series gran coupé' model omitted from bmw exception list by obvious slipRespondent1
review of allocation of technically qualified judge to obtain one with mechanical engineering expertiseRespondent1
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.