UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions3Judges2Parties2Firms
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 principlefront-loaded procedure and inadmissibility of new grounds not responsive to defenceClear all

Filtering to principle: front-loaded procedure and inadmissibility of new grounds not responsive to defence

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
admissibility of patent amendments in partial revocation actions11100%
late-filed documents and proportionate response rule11100%
priority date cuts off prior art for inventive step (art. 56 epc)11100%
front-loaded procedure and inadmissibility of new grounds not responsive to defence11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
late-filed prior art documents mb2 and mb4 should be admitted and undermine inventive stepClaimant1
request to amend patent is inadmissible with respect to non-challenged claimsClaimant1
new grounds for revocation introduced in reply to defence constitute permissible argumentsClaimant1
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
ReferencePredominant roleCases
MB2 (European patent application published 9 September 2016)Obviousness combination1
MB4 (unspecified prior art document)Obviousness combination1