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 |
|---|---|---|
| invalidity counterclaim against ep 2 568 724 b1 | Respondent | 1 |
| frand counterclaim — willingness to take a frand license precluding injunction | Respondent | 1 |
| case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over non-eu defendants (zhejiang geely holding group and geely automobile holdings ltd.) | Respondent | 1 |
| business relationship under art. 33(1)(b) requires direct commercial ties between all defendants across different brand groups within the geely conglomerate | Respondent | 1 |
| case against sovex (d1) should be transferred to the hague as sovex is domiciled in the netherlands | Respondent | 1 |
| art. 33(1)(a) must be interpreted restrictively as a lex specialis requiring a specific territorial connection analogous to cjeu kalfelis restrictive interpretation of art. 7(2) brussels i | Respondent | 1 |
| cjeu reference on art. 32 upca and art. 71a-71b brussels i is necessary | Respondent | 1 |
| counterclaim for revocation: patent lacks validity | Respondent | 1 |
| alleged disproportionate harm from injunction (late-filed claim about magnitude of damage) | Respondent | 1 |
| unconditionally amended main request and auxiliary requests 1–12 should be maintained | Claimant | 1 |
| hlcc17 only discloses n-gram vectors applied to url filepaths, not domain names generally | Claimant | 1 |
| security (sicherheitsleistung) should be required before granting provisional measures | Respondent | 1 |
| defendants' appstack, securestack-ssl and threat simulator products directly infringe claim 16 and indirectly infringe claim 1 | Claimant | 1 |
| oral hearing should be reopened to allow expert review of defendants' source code, and defendants should produce source code | Claimant | 1 |
| infringement of ep 2 028 981 in poland, spain and the united kingdom by nuc electronics co., ltd. | Claimant | 1 |
| remaining requests beyond injunction, damages, information, destruction, and recall | Claimant | 1 |
| direct infringement of ep 2 746 967 by texas instruments' processors implementing dvfs | Claimant | 1 |
| general common knowledge (gck) supports inventive step challenge for claim feature subset | Respondent | 1 |
| defendants' streaming services literally or equivalently infringe ep 2 479 680 | Claimant | 1 |
| full revocation of ep 2 479 680 including all auxiliary requests | Respondent | 1 |
| late disclosure of video file encoding information should be ordered under r. 191 rop | Claimant | 1 |
| counterclaim for revocation of ep 3 511 174 | Respondent | 1 |
| private prior use right under german law (art. 28 upca) | Respondent | 1 |
| penalties imposed were disproportionate given pending legal questions on upc enforcement | Respondent | 1 |
| exhaustion defence / competition law argument as a defence to infringement | Respondent | 1 |
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
| Reference | Predominant role | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| HLCC17 | Obviousness combination | 1 |
| WO [379] (prior art document cited in preparatory order in context of novelty/inventive step) | Obviousness combination | 1 |
| EP 452 (prior art document cited in preparatory order for novelty and inventive step analysis) | Novelty-destroying | 1 |
| EP 968 (cited in preparatory order for inventive step combination) | Obviousness combination | 1 |