UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics16Cases11Decisions12Judges29Parties6Firms
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 2 cases with reasoning extracted. Success rate counts patentee-favorable outcomes only.
PrincipleCasesDecidedPatentee success
provisional measures require sufficient certainty of patent validity, not merely the court's own view220%
burden of proof for infringement lies with applicant110%
reversal of burden of proof requires reasonable prior indications of infringement110%
infringement must be established before validity and other pi requirements are assessed110%
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 pi requires prompt investigation upon knowledge of infringement110%
three-month delay without significant clarification steps defeats urgency110%
doctrine of equivalents: assessment focuses on how the technical effect is achieved, not merely that an effect is produced110%
description passage identifying acceleration as 'additional' to sound sensing precludes treating acceleration as an equivalent alternative110%
costs of protective letter are 'other costs' of proceedings under art. 69(1) upca110%
ex parte provisional measures require security for potential damages if later revoked (r. 211.5 verfo)11100%
even clear infringement and secure validity do not in principle justify dispensing with a security order in ex parte pi proceedings11100%
provisional cost reimbursement may be ordered alongside ex parte pi (art. 60(1) upca; r. 211.1(c) verfo)11100%
ce-mark approval for a medical device signals imminent market entry across all eu member states and constitutes an indication of imminent infringement under r. 206.2(c) rop11100%
applicant's prior knowledge of the accused device before ce-mark approval is irrelevant to urgency; the ce mark is the relevant triggering event11100%
ce-mark approval combined with public trade fair announcement and provision of ordering information constitutes 'setting the stage to market' for purposes of imminent infringement11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
attacked embodiment (speed care hemostatic gauze) contains a binder as required by patent claimsClaimant1
burden of proof should be reversed because applicant has provided reasonable indications of infringementClaimant1
request for security for enforcementRespondent1
attacked embodiment contains only one fluid (a water-in-oil emulsion) preventing infringementRespondent1
connected ball technology infringes the patent by using sensor data to determine ball contactClaimant1
infringement by equivalents — accelerometer processing equivalent to sound-signal comparisonClaimant1
auxiliary requests based on amended claims (adding acceleration sensing) establish infringementClaimant1
security/enforcement bond should be ordered against occlutechRespondent1
application for provisional measures as to remaining embodiments (second group of attacked products)Claimant1
international jurisdiction for spanish national part of defendant 4 (dreame technology ab)Claimant1
preliminary injunction against samsung bioepis based on ep 3 167 888 b1Claimant1
preliminary injunction against amgen entities based on ep 3 167 888 b1Claimant1
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.