UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions3Judges2Parties3Firms
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 principlelate-filed auxiliary requests (ar1' to ar16') inadmissibleClear all

Filtering to principle: late-filed auxiliary requests (ar1' to ar16') inadmissible

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
added matter (art. 100(c) epc) — claim feature introducing concept not supported by parent application constitutes inadmissible generalisation110%
scope of upc revocation can be limited to national parts of upca member states110%
late-filed auxiliary requests (ar1' to ar16') inadmissible110%
claim construction — purpose of determining whether claimed feature 1.7 finds literal support in parent application110%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
all 16 auxiliary requests (ar1 to ar16) filed by dish technologies to overcome the added matter invalidityRespondent1
dependent claim 2 (streamlet cache module) survives even if claim 1 is revokedRespondent1
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.