UPC Analytics
ENDE

Legal issues

Cross-cutting view of legal principles, recurring arguments, and the prior art the court relies on.

Most-litigated legal principles
Recurring legal principles across 1 cases with reasoning extracted. Success rate counts patentee-favorable outcomes only.
PrincipleCasesDecidedPatentee success
problem-solution approach (noted as not mandatory under epc but applied as consistent with outcome)11100%
patent limitation during proceedings can defeat revocation action11100%
cost-splitting where revocation dismissed only due to in-proceedings amendment11100%
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%
problem-solution approach for inventive step11100%
standstill clause breach does not bar action but may give rise to contractual liability11100%
motivation to combine prior art references required for obviousness11100%
problem-solution approach — court noted it is not mandatory under epc but would not change the outcome if applied11100%
patent maintenance as amended — court can maintain patent in limited form pursuant to auxiliary request11100%
closest prior art identification11100%
costs apportioned where patent is maintained only because defendant (patentee) filed a limitation during proceedings11100%
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%
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%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
defendant's submission of 31 may 2024 (inadmissible late submission)Respondent2
lack of inventive step based on 'levi' as closest prior art combined with disclosure of hexagonal cells in heart valvesClaimant1
all invalidity grounds raised against amended auxiliary request ii are well-foundedClaimant1
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
lack of inventive step over diaz combined with robertsonClaimant1
lack of inventive step starting from glejboel combined with diaz and/or robertsonClaimant1
revocation of ep 3 646 825 as granted (main request) on grounds of lack of novelty and/or inventive stepClaimant1
lack of inventive step of ar ii claims over levi (closest prior art) in combination with teachings about hexagonal cells in heart valvesClaimant1
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
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
proceedings should be stayed pending related national revocation actionRespondent1
auxiliary requests 2–8 render the claimed subject-matter patentableRespondent1
claim 1 obvious over cross or pan combined with difonzoClaimant1
claim 1 obvious over pan combined with common general knowledgeClaimant1
auxiliary requests (2)a through (2)d to amend the patent to overcome added matter objectionRespondent1
ep 3 504 991 b1 lacks novelty over cohenClaimant1
claim 1 invalid for lack of inventive stepClaimant1
claim 1 lacks novelty over cited prior art range disclosuresClaimant1
claim 1 lacks inventive step starting from d14 (float process glass) combined with d16 (refining agents)Claimant1
inventive step challenged by reference to chinese supreme people's court judgment on a related chinese patentClaimant1
experimental report d41 relevant to patentability of auxiliary requestsClaimant1
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
ReferencePredominant roleCases
Levi (unspecified publication)Obviousness combination1
Fontaine (article)Obviousness combination1
WO 2013/012801Background1
EP 3 205 309Background1
EP 2 731 552Background1
MB2 (European patent application published 9 September 2016)Obviousness combination1
MB4 (unspecified prior art document)Obviousness combination1
Diaz (unspecified publication, liquid drug delivery system)Obviousness combination1
Robertson (unspecified publication, container for solid medicaments)Obviousness combination1
Glejboel (unspecified publication)Obviousness combination1
LeviObviousness combination1
Fontaine articleObviousness combination1
WO 2013/012801 (WO '801 / grandparent application)Background1
GöranssonNovelty-destroying1
D46Obviousness combination1
CrossObviousness combination1
PanObviousness combination1
DiFonzoObviousness combination1
CohenNovelty-destroying1
Chen (CN 101843368 A)Background1
Thompson (US 2013/0192617 A1)Background1
D14Obviousness combination1
D16Obviousness combination1
D19Obviousness combination1
D40 (expert opinion)Background1