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
settlement-based withdrawal is permissible before final decision (r. 265 rop)110%
60% court fee reimbursement applies where action is withdrawn before closure of written procedure (r. 370.11; r. 370.9(b)(i) rop)110%
priority: 'same invention' standard under art. 87 epc equated to added matter disclosure standard110%
inventive step: material selection from limited class of known materials not inventive110%
equivalence assessment in infringement110%
partial revocation of patent on counterclaim110%
costs split proportionally where each party partially succeeds110%
substantive necessity for provisional measures: applicant must specifically demonstrate why main proceedings are insufficient to remedy the harm110%
court may dismiss provisional measures application without oral hearing when applicant indicates no further hearing is needed110%
urgency alone is insufficient; temporal and substantive necessity are both required for provisional measures110%
irreparable harm threshold: harm must be of a magnitude that monetary compensation in main proceedings cannot adequately address110%
registered patent proprietor holds strong rebuttable presumption of entitlement in pi proceedings11100%
urgency in pi proceedings assessed by totality of applicant conduct, not fixed deadline11100%
validity likelihood assessed on the specific patent only, not general revocation statistics11100%
failure to bring timely vindication action bars reliance on patentee bad faith in balance of interests11100%
parties have no right to determine technical background of technically qualified judge; partiality is only valid objection11100%
r. 353 rop rectification limited to clerical mistakes and obvious slips; cannot correct matters not raised at hearing11100%
in a bifurcated upc case, the local division is bound by the central division's amendment of the patent claims110%
where infringement is not found under amended claims, validity becomes irrelevant to the infringement action110%
doctrine of equivalents admissibility question may be left open if non-infringement is found without it110%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
infringement of ep 2 755 901 b1 and/or ep 3 466 498 by defendants' egg packaging productsClaimant1
counterclaim for revocation dismissed in remaining parts beyond the partially revoked claimsRespondent1
market saturation from infringing products and long-term customer lock-in create irreparable harm justifying provisional measuresClaimant1
ongoing tenders in italy creating long-term binding commitments justify urgent provisional measuresClaimant1
applicant acted in bad faith by unlawfully appropriating the patent, warranting denial of piRespondent1
application for rectification: '2 series gran coupé' model omitted from bmw exception list by obvious slipRespondent1
review of allocation of technically qualified judge to obtain one with mechanical engineering expertiseRespondent1
infringement by equivalence of product claim 1 (challenged embodiment i)Claimant1
patent validity remains decisive for the infringement action even in a bifurcated caseClaimant1
provisional measures application for preliminary injunction against celltrion entities regarding ep 3 805 248 b1Claimant1
publication of the judgment should be orderedClaimant1
remaining requests in the infringement actionClaimant1
direct infringement of ep 2 263 098 b1 by google's wi-fi positioning productClaimant1
late indirect infringement auxiliary requests introduced in unsolicited september 2025 submissionClaimant1
samsung should be ordered to provide security for costs against headwaterRespondent1
security for costs should be ordered against 10x genomics in the provisional measures proceedingsRespondent1
all auxiliary requests to amend the patent to overcome the added-matter objectionClaimant1
infringement of ep 3 223 320 by expert e-commerce and expert klein for led productsClaimant1
a defendant that did not file its own revocation counterclaim can still benefit from invalidity arguments in its defenceRespondent1
narrowing claim construction based on description or drawings to exclude what is literally covered by claim languageRespondent1
application to amend the patent (fujifilm's auxiliary requests)Claimant1
infringement action concerning ep 3 594 009 b1Claimant1
rectification of injunction order to include austria in the territorial scopeClaimant1
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
ReferencePredominant roleCases
D12, D13, D14 (prior art documents referenced in proceedings)Obviousness combination1