UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics11Cases6Decisions17Judges18Parties4Firms
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
added matter: claimed feature must be directly and unambiguously derivable from application as filed110%
balance of probabilities test for validity in pi proceedings110%
costs follow the event in pi proceedings even without main proceedings110%
all dependent claims fall with the same added-matter defect as independent claim110%
imminent infringement must arise directly from conduct of potential infringer110%
pharmaceutical regulatory steps (marketing authorisation, pep request) do not per se establish imminent infringement110%
costs follow the event under art. 69 upca and art. 14 directive 2004/48110%
balance of probabilities validity standard for provisional measures11100%
burden of proof for invalidity lies with the defendant in pi proceedings11100%
public prior use must cover all claim features11100%
weighing of interests in pi can favour patentee where infringement opens new downstream markets11100%
security for enforcement requires a reasoned application with supporting facts11100%
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%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
feature of connector support received through distal-facing opening into recess is supported by multiple passages and figures in the application as filedClaimant1
provisional reimbursement of costs ordered in favour of applicantClaimant1
imminent infringement established by infarmed notice, receipt of marketing authorisations, and filing of pep requestClaimant1
request for security for enforcementRespondent1
attacked embodiment contains only one fluid (a water-in-oil emulsion) preventing infringementRespondent1
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
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
ReferencePredominant roleCases
WO 2011/119896Distinguished1