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.
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
| Argument | Party | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| new line of arguments on added matter based on different passages of a lengthy document should be admitted | Claimant | 1 |
| gillette defence (accused product is prior art or obvious modification thereof, therefore non-infringing) | Respondent | 1 |
| claim should be limited to the specific shape shown in a particular drawing | Respondent | 1 |
| right to publication of the decision should be granted | Claimant | 1 |
| infringement of the second medical use claim of ep 3 536 712 b1 by amgen's evolocumab product in paediatric patients | Claimant | 1 |
| counterclaim for revocation of ep 3 536 712 b1 | Respondent | 1 |
| patent ep 3 356 109 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation) | Respondent | 1 |
| third-party counterclaim (dritt-widerklage) against alexander christ should succeed | Respondent | 1 |
| software-based deactivation of infringing function is an alternative to destruction | Respondent | 1 |
| valeo lacks entitlement to bring pi proceedings / patent title is manifestly erroneous | Respondent | 1 |
| general revocation rates of patents indicate the patent is more likely than not invalid | Respondent | 1 |
| patent ep 3 466 498 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation) — novelty and inventive step | Respondent | 1 |
| new prior art and new invalidity attacks raised for the first time in the rejoinder to revocation counterclaim | Respondent | 1 |
| infringement is established: the accused occlusion devices fall within the scope of ep 1 998 686 b2 | Claimant | 1 |
| application dismissed in all other aspects against defendant 1 | Claimant | 1 |
| remaining aspects of application (not specified in available excerpt) | Claimant | 1 |
| infringement of ep 2 755 901 b1 and/or ep 3 466 498 by defendants' egg packaging products | Claimant | 1 |
| counterclaim for revocation dismissed in remaining parts beyond the partially revoked claims | Respondent | 1 |
| market saturation from infringing products and long-term customer lock-in create irreparable harm justifying provisional measures | Claimant | 1 |
| ongoing tenders in italy creating long-term binding commitments justify urgent provisional measures | Claimant | 1 |
| applicant acted in bad faith by unlawfully appropriating the patent, warranting denial of pi | Respondent | 1 |
| application for rectification: '2 series gran coupé' model omitted from bmw exception list by obvious slip | Respondent | 1 |
| review of allocation of technically qualified judge to obtain one with mechanical engineering expertise | Respondent | 1 |
| patent ep 3 686 683 b1 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation) | Respondent | 1 |
| additional test-purchase evidence should be admitted as further pleading under r. 36 rop | Claimant | 1 |
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
| Reference | Predominant role | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| D12, D13, D14 (prior art documents referenced in proceedings) | Obviousness combination | 1 |