UPC Analytics
ENDE

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.
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%
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%
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
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
market saturation from infringing products and long-term customer lock-in create irreparable harm justifying provisional measuresClaimant1
ongoing tenders in italy creating long-term binding commitments justify urgent provisional measuresClaimant1
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
security for costs should be ordered against 10x genomics in the provisional measures proceedingsRespondent1
rectification of injunction order to include austria in the territorial scopeClaimant1
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.