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
frand11100%
sep infringement — injunction not automatically barred by frand commitment where defendant's counterclaim fails on the merits11100%
temporal urgency for provisional measures under r. 211.4 rop110%
urgency assessed from when applicant knew or should have known of infringement110%
delay in analysing known facts cannot revive urgency110%
costs follow the event in pi proceedings110%
product-by-process claim construction: technical properties conferred by process are decisive11100%
upc jurisdiction over art. 67 epc compensation for use during application publication period11100%
destruction as corrective measure; software deactivation insufficient unless re-enablement impossible11100%
costs apportionment where both parties partially succeed11100%
added matter: claimed feature must be directly and unambiguously derivable from application as filed110%
balance of probabilities test for validity in pi proceedings110%
costs follow the event in pi proceedings even without main proceedings110%
all dependent claims fall with the same added-matter defect as independent claim110%
cost allocation where patent valid only in non-asserted amended form: patentee bears revocation costs110%
compensation of costs where counter-claimant sought revocation of non-asserted claims that were upheld110%
partial revocation maintains patent in amended claim form under art. 65 upca110%
ex parte provisional measures require security for potential damages if later revoked (r. 211.5 verfo)11100%
even clear infringement and secure validity do not in principle justify dispensing with a security order in ex parte pi proceedings11100%
provisional cost reimbursement may be ordered alongside ex parte pi (art. 60(1) upca; r. 211.1(c) verfo)11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
invalidity counterclaim against ep 2 568 724 b1Respondent1
frand counterclaim — willingness to take a frand license precluding injunctionRespondent1
cilag had urgency because it only became aware of the true extent of infringement and market risk (sana acceptance, price erosion risk) in april 2025Claimant1
david vs. goliath argument: cilag's larger market position vs. rivolution's smaller size creates special urgencyClaimant1
applications to submit further evidence after the oral hearing should be admittedClaimant1
patent ep 3 356 109 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)Respondent1
third-party counterclaim (dritt-widerklage) against alexander christ should succeedRespondent1
software-based deactivation of infringing function is an alternative to destructionRespondent1
feature of connector support received through distal-facing opening into recess is supported by multiple passages and figures in the application as filedClaimant1
provisional reimbursement of costs ordered in favour of applicantClaimant1
orbisk's food waste monitoring system infringes ep 3 198 245Claimant1
r. 190 rop application for document productionClaimant1
declaration that glucomen ican is 'goods suspected of infringing an ip right' under eu regulation 608/2013 should be granted as a provisional measureClaimant1
information order should include price, sales numbers, and cost dataClaimant1
information disclosure should be subject to confidentialityRespondent1
glucomen ican infringes claim 1 (feature 1.13(c)) because the event icons appear on the same screen as the timeline graphClaimant1
information order extending to prices and numbers of cabinets sold (for damages calculation)Claimant1
applicant should bear its own costs because it failed to issue a prior warning before filing the anti-anti-suit/anti-anti-enforcement injunctionRespondent1
abm's belated (oral hearing) challenge that jp748 is not a realistic starting point for inventive stepClaimant1
dependent claim 2 (adaptive feedback) saves the patentClaimant1
infringement of ep 2 437 696 b2 by philips' sleep therapy devicesClaimant1
representative's illness prevented timely filing of sod and re-establishment of rights under r. 320 should be grantedRespondent1
default decision should be set aside under r. 356 ropRespondent1
private prior use right (in de, fr, it, ro) precludes infringement findingRespondent1
counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement of revised product (new product 2) is admissibleRespondent1
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
ReferencePredominant roleCases
WO 2011/119896Distinguished1
JP748 (Japanese patent on position therapy device, circa 1990/1991)Novelty-destroying1
P25 (Handbook of Modern Sensors, 2003)Background1
P28 (textbook for sleep medicine, evidencing accelerometers in wrist actigraphy)Background1
WO 2007/001986 A2 (WO986) — EP572 priority documentBackground1
prior public use / offenkundige Vorbenutzung of sintered metal preparation by VibrantzNovelty-destroying1