UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics100Cases23Decisions32Judges223Parties29Firms
Filing trendsOutcomesPendencyTechnologyForum strategyLeading casesLegal issuesSecurity 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.
PrincipleCasesDecidedPatentee success
settlement-based withdrawal is permissible before final decision where defendants have no legitimate interest in continuation (r. 265.1 rop)110%
60% court fee reimbursement applies where action is withdrawn before closure of written procedure (r. 370.9(b)(i); r. 370.11 rop)110%
mathematical identity of results does not establish infringement; actual method configuration is decisive110%
late-filed arguments at oral hearing excluded under r. 9.2 rop110%
indirect infringement requires showing the product is suitable and intended for the patented use110%
claim scope limited by the patent's own description disclosing insufficiently stable reference genes as non-qualifying110%
language of proceedings fairness assessment requires consideration of all circumstances, not only language of patent110%
domicile of parties in countries where the chosen language is official is a decisive factor against language change110%
size and financial resources of parties are relevant to balancing interests in language change applications110%
fair access to justice for medium-sized enterprises is an objective of the upca110%
withdrawal of action permitted where no legitimate interest of defendants in a court decision exists110%
settlement between claimant and principal defendant justifies withdrawal as against all defendants110%
60% court fee reimbursement where withdrawal before closure of written procedure (r. 370.9(b)(i))110%
parties may agree each bears own extrajudicial costs; court gives effect to such agreement110%
purpose indications in device claims define suitability for the stated function, not actual use11100%
for novelty with a purpose-limited device claim, prior art must disclose a device having all structural features and be suitable for the purpose (or require modification to be suitable)11100%
exhaustion under art. 29 upca extends to normal maintenance and repair, but not to re-manufacture of the patented product11100%
re-manufacture vs. repair test: whether the replacement preserves the identity of the specific patented product placed on the market11100%
where patentee defends only via auxiliary requests, no obligation to examine partial invalidity of originally-granted claims11100%
auxiliary claim sets must each contain all independent claims in allowable form to support maintenance on that auxiliary request11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
accused test kits directly infringe claim 1 because the average normalization is mathematically identical to successive per-gene normalizationClaimant1
indirect infringement: the test kit is suitable and intended for the patented method using oaz1 alone as reference geneClaimant1
genes calm2 and rpl37a can serve as further reference genes under the patent's multi-reference-gene readingClaimant1
english is the commonly used language in the relevant field of technology, justifying language changeRespondent1
nvidia is significantly impaired in organising its defence in germanRespondent1
exhaustion: defendants' filter cartridges are legitimately supplied replacement parts for products placed on market by britaRespondent1
patent claims as originally granted are valid (revocation counterclaim)Respondent1
where patentee defends only via auxiliary requests (amended claims), court must first consider whether original claims are partially invalid under art. 65(3) upcaRespondent1
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.

No prior-art data in the current scope.