UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics6Cases9Decisions11Judges11Parties3Firms
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
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%
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%
mushroom strain patent not excluded from patentability under art. 53(b) epc11100%
provisional measures require prima facie infringement11100%
security may be ordered as condition for enforcement (r. 211.5 rop)11100%
case value may be inferred from the security amount requested by the defendant11100%
interim award of costs limited to court fees where merits proceedings are to follow11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
imminent infringement established by infarmed notice, receipt of marketing authorisations, and filing of pep requestClaimant1
application dismissed in all other aspects against defendant 1Claimant1
requested case value of eur 500,000 for determining recoverable-costs ceilingClaimant1
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.