Analytics 105Cases 43Decisions 48Judges 167Parties 24Firms

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
burden of proof for infringement lies with applicant	1	1	0%
reversal of burden of proof requires reasonable prior indications of infringement	1	1	0%
infringement must be established before validity and other pi requirements are assessed	1	1	0%
expert/written statements filed as replies to statement of defence are admissible if they constitute justified reactions to new defence arguments	1	1	100%
the fact a witness statement was originally drafted for parallel national proceedings does not render it inadmissible	1	1	100%
technical findings on infringement: knitted waffle-structure layer constitutes infringement of the protective workwear patent	1	1	100%
temporal urgency for provisional measures under r. 211.4 rop	1	1	0%
urgency assessed from when applicant knew or should have known of infringement	1	1	0%
delay in analysing known facts cannot revive urgency	1	1	0%
costs follow the event in pi proceedings	1	1	0%
settlement-based withdrawal is permissible before final decision (r. 265 rop)	1	1	0%
60% court fee reimbursement applies where action is withdrawn before closure of written procedure (r. 370.11; r. 370.9(b)(i) rop)	1	1	0%
court may confirm a settlement and render it enforceable as a final decision (art. 79 upca; r. 365 rop)	1	1	0%
settlement details may be kept confidential by court order (r. 365.2-365.3 rop; r. 262.2 rop)	1	1	0%
upc jurisdiction regardless of defendant's domicile (art. 71b(2) upca)	1	1	100%
anchor defendant and close connection under art. 8(1) brussels i recast	1	1	100%
eu authorized representative as intermediary under art. 63(1) upca	1	1	100%
eu authorized representative as anchor defendant in patent infringement proceedings	1	1	100%
plausible allegation of infringing acts required for national part jurisdiction	1	1	100%
no enforcement security required where applicant is a well-known manufacturer	1	1	100%

Most-rejected arguments

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

Argument	Party	Cases
attacked embodiment (speed care hemostatic gauze) contains a binder as required by patent claims	Claimant	1
burden of proof should be reversed because applicant has provided reasonable indications of infringement	Claimant	1
exclusion of expert statements and associated claimant reasoning from proceedings	Respondent	1
cilag had urgency because it only became aware of the true extent of infringement and market risk (sana acceptance, price erosion risk) in april 2025	Claimant	1
david vs. goliath argument: cilag's larger market position vs. rivolution's smaller size creates special urgency	Claimant	1
applications to submit further evidence after the oral hearing should be admitted	Claimant	1
application for provisional measures as to remaining embodiments (second group of attacked products)	Claimant	1
international jurisdiction for spanish national part of defendant 4 (dreame technology ab)	Claimant	1
abm's belated (oral hearing) challenge that jp748 is not a realistic starting point for inventive step	Claimant	1
dependent claim 2 (adaptive feedback) saves the patent	Claimant	1
infringement of ep 2 437 696 b2 by philips' sleep therapy devices	Claimant	1

Most-cited prior art

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

Reference	Predominant role	Cases
JP748 (Japanese patent on position therapy device, circa 1990/1991)	Novelty-destroying	1
P25 (Handbook of Modern Sensors, 2003)	Background	1
P28 (textbook for sleep medicine, evidencing accelerometers in wrist actigraphy)	Background	1