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 |
|---|---|---|
| preliminary cost reimbursement order should be granted in preliminary injunction proceedings | Claimant | 1 |
| validity attacks (best three arguments) defeat the patent at pi stage | Respondent | 1 |
| application for seizure of goods should be maintained in full | Claimant | 1 |
| d7 (new prior art) submitted with written submission of 15 march 2024 admitted to revocation proceedings | Respondent | 1 |
| revocation counterclaims — patent invalid | Respondent | 1 |
| ep 3 350 592 as granted is valid | Claimant | 1 |
| auxiliary requests 1 and 2 are valid | Claimant | 1 |
| auxiliary requests for provisional measures based on amended claim versions should be admitted | Claimant | 1 |
| preliminary cost reimbursement of eur 168,000 should be granted to respondent | Respondent | 1 |
| applications to amend the patent (auxiliary requests) should cure the added-matter defect | Respondent | 1 |
| claims 1 and 11 of ep 3 972 309 are infringed by asus devices | Claimant | 1 |
| aorticlab's device infringes ep 2 129 425 because irregular patent-compliant use by medical professionals constitutes infringement | Claimant | 1 |
| private prior use right (in de, fr, it, ro) precludes infringement finding | Respondent | 1 |
| invalidity of ep 2 839 083 b9 as originally granted (revocation counterclaim) | Respondent | 1 |
| infringement is impossible due to features outside the patent claim that prevent the patented function from being achieved | Respondent | 1 |
| claims 1 and 11 are supported by the parent application and do not go beyond its content | Claimant | 1 |
| auxiliary requests to amend the patent should cure the added-matter defect | Claimant | 1 |
| ep 2 493 466 (cabazitaxel antitumour use patent) is valid over the prior art | Claimant | 1 |
| no auxiliary requests for patent amendment filed | Claimant | 1 |
| the infringement action should succeed on the remaining valid claims | Claimant | 1 |
| full revocation of ep 3 215 288 including all amended claims | Respondent | 1 |
| the patent as amended (auxiliary requests ar1-ar1-24) should be maintained as valid | Claimant | 1 |
| security for costs should be set at no more than eur 100,000 and may be provided by a us bank guarantee | Claimant | 1 |
| the written witness statement of dr. raleigh qualifies as a full witness statement under r. 175 rop | Claimant | 1 |
| ep 3 669 828 lacks inventive step and should be revoked | Respondent | 1 |
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
| Reference | Predominant role | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| D7 (unspecified late-filed document) | Obviousness combination | 1 |
| NHSC document (clinical/regulatory document disclosing cabazitaxel antitumour use in docetaxel-pretreated patients) | Novelty-destroying | 1 |
| prior public use / offenkundige Vorbenutzung of sintered metal preparation by Vibrantz | Novelty-destroying | 1 |
| ZP8-ZP9 (late-filed documents admitted in response to AR1-24) | Obviousness combination | 1 |
| D3 | Novelty-destroying | 1 |