Analytics 106Cases 41Decisions 48Judges 208Parties 29Firms

Filing trends Outcomes Pendency Technology Forum strategy Leading cases Legal issues Security for costs

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.

Principle	Cases	Decided	Patentee success
added matter: claimed feature must be directly and unambiguously derivable from application as filed	1	1	0%
balance of probabilities test for validity in pi proceedings	1	1	0%
costs follow the event in pi proceedings even without main proceedings	1	1	0%
all dependent claims fall with the same added-matter defect as independent claim	1	1	0%
imminent infringement must arise directly from conduct of potential infringer	1	1	0%
pharmaceutical regulatory steps (marketing authorisation, pep request) do not per se establish imminent infringement	1	1	0%
costs follow the event under art. 69 upca and art. 14 directive 2004/48	1	1	0%
balance of probabilities validity standard for provisional measures	1	1	100%
burden of proof for invalidity lies with the defendant in pi proceedings	1	1	100%
public prior use must cover all claim features	1	1	100%
weighing of interests in pi can favour patentee where infringement opens new downstream markets	1	1	100%
security for enforcement requires a reasoned application with supporting facts	1	1	100%
cost allocation where patent valid only in non-asserted amended form: patentee bears revocation costs	1	1	0%
compensation of costs where counter-claimant sought revocation of non-asserted claims that were upheld	1	1	0%
partial revocation maintains patent in amended claim form under art. 65 upca	1	1	0%
patent infringement not excluded by fact device normally operates non-infringingly, as long as patent-compliant use remains possible	1	1	0%
in medical devices, irregular patent-compliant use constitutes infringement only if consistent with professional practice and recognised medical science rules	1	1	0%
conditional counterclaim dependent on intra-procedural event (infringement finding) is procedurally valid and limits court's mandate (r. 263.3 rop; art. 76(1) upca)	1	1	0%
if condition for counterclaim decision does not occur, counterclaimant bears costs for counterclaim as unnecessary costs (art. 69(3) upca)	1	1	0%
both parties bear their own costs where claimant fails on infringement and counterclaimant's conditional counterclaim is not decided	1	1	0%

Most-rejected arguments

Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.

Argument	Party	Cases
feature of connector support received through distal-facing opening into recess is supported by multiple passages and figures in the application as filed	Claimant	1
provisional reimbursement of costs ordered in favour of applicant	Claimant	1
imminent infringement established by infarmed notice, receipt of marketing authorisations, and filing of pep request	Claimant	1
request for security for enforcement	Respondent	1
attacked embodiment contains only one fluid (a water-in-oil emulsion) preventing infringement	Respondent	1
orbisk's food waste monitoring system infringes ep 3 198 245	Claimant	1
r. 190 rop application for document production	Claimant	1
aorticlab's device infringes ep 2 129 425 because irregular patent-compliant use by medical professionals constitutes infringement	Claimant	1
barco's delay in filing was not unreasonable given complexity of infringement analysis	Claimant	1
rectification of final order to add the word 'interim' to costs award was warranted under r. 353 rop	Claimant	1

Most-cited prior art

References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.

Reference	Predominant role	Cases
WO 2011/119896	Distinguished	1