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 principlepriority date cuts off prior art for inventive step (art. 56 epc)Clear all

Filtering to principle: priority date cuts off prior art for inventive step (art. 56 epc)

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