UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics34Cases24Decisions34Judges58Parties20Firms
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
rebuttable presumption of patent proprietorship under r. 8.5(c) rop11100%
urgency for pi: no fixed deadline, assessed on totality of applicant's conduct11100%
general patent revocation rates irrelevant to individual patent validity assessment11100%
bad faith claim requires prior vindication action by defendant11100%
weighing of interests in pi proceedings11100%
homologation of settlement as enforceable court decision under art. 79 upca110%
confidentiality of settlement terms under r. 365(2) rop110%
each party bears its own costs where settlement does not address costs allocation to court110%
parties may withdraw actions following settlement under r. 265.1 rop; court declares proceedings closed110%
fee reimbursement percentage depends on the stage of proceedings at the time of withdrawal (r. 370.9(b) rop): 20% reimbursed after interim phase, before oral phase110%
the rule 105.5 order can constitute implied notification that the interim phase has ended for purposes of r. 370.9(b) rop110%
leave to appeal on fee reimbursement rules denied where amendment to rules means clarification would have only historical significance110%
urgency for provisional measures: delay in filing after knowledge of infringement may defeat urgency110%
conditions for provisional measures are cumulative; lack of urgency alone defeats the application110%
brussels i regulation amendments govern international jurisdiction only, not internal upc territorial competence under art. 33 upca110%
art. 33(1) upca lists alternative competences without hierarchical preference between sub-paragraphs (a) and (b)110%
earliest upc jurisdiction date is the grant date of the european patent, not the unitary effect registration date110%
r. 353 rop rectification grounds are exhaustive: only clerical errors, miscalculations, and obvious omissions qualify110%
a decision must be read as a whole including its reasoning; the substantive operative part and the motivational grounds are equally part of the order110%
registered patent proprietor holds strong rebuttable presumption of entitlement in pi proceedings11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
valeo lacks entitlement to bring pi proceedings / patent title is manifestly erroneousRespondent1
general revocation rates of patents indicate the patent is more likely than not invalidRespondent1
barco's delay in filing was not unreasonable given complexity of infringement analysisClaimant1
rectification of final order to add the word 'interim' to costs award was warranted under r. 353 ropClaimant1
applicant acted in bad faith by unlawfully appropriating the patent, warranting denial of piRespondent1
application for rectification: '2 series gran coupé' model omitted from bmw exception list by obvious slipRespondent1
review of allocation of technically qualified judge to obtain one with mechanical engineering expertiseRespondent1
counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement of revised product (new product 2) is admissibleRespondent1
patent lacks inventive step / contains added matter (counterclaim for revocation)Respondent1
application to deposit three further physical objects (bb40a-c) as late exhibitsRespondent1
infringement by equivalence of product claim 1 (challenged embodiment i)Claimant1
patent validity remains decisive for the infringement action even in a bifurcated caseClaimant1
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.