UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions4Judges4Parties0Firms
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.

CategoryrevocationLegal principledistinction between direct and indirect infringement in component supply scenariosClear all

Filtering to principle: distinction between direct and indirect infringement in component supply scenarios

Clear principle filter
Most-litigated legal principles
Recurring legal principles across 1 cases with reasoning extracted. Success rate counts patentee-favorable outcomes only.
PrincipleCasesDecidedPatentee success
direct infringement under art. 25(a) upca — supply of all components designed for simple assembly at point of use11100%
direct infringement — sale of a single component of a multi-component product where assembly is indicated or obvious11100%
distinction between direct and indirect infringement in component supply scenarios11100%
costs allocation for director-defendants sued in their capacity as directors11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
revocation counterclaim against ep 2 223 589 b1 (bed enclosure with lockable sheet metal strip)Respondent1
personal liability of individual directors (johann and stefan windhager) for costs beyond windhager gmbh's liabilityClaimant1
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.