Analytics 30Cases 26Decisions 33Judges 44Parties 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
problem-solution approach (noted as not mandatory under epc but applied as consistent with outcome)	1	1	100%
patent limitation during proceedings can defeat revocation action	1	1	100%
cost-splitting where revocation dismissed only due to in-proceedings amendment	1	1	100%
problem-solution approach — court noted it is not mandatory under epc but would not change the outcome if applied	1	1	100%
patent maintenance as amended — court can maintain patent in limited form pursuant to auxiliary request	1	1	100%
closest prior art identification	1	1	100%
costs apportioned where patent is maintained only because defendant (patentee) filed a limitation during proceedings	1	1	100%
independent process claim does not limit scope of independent product claim unless patent specification explicitly links process features to product characteristics	1	1	100%
manufacturing injunction may cover products currently made outside contracting states by third parties	1	1	100%
purposive claim construction: scope of device claim determined by its structural features, not by unclaimed functions described elsewhere in the specification	1	1	100%
multi-defendant jurisdiction under art. 33(1)(b) upca requires commercial relationship and same infringement of same national patent designations by same product	1	1	100%
problem-solution approach applied as primary inventive step tool to align upc jurisprudence with epo and boards of appeal	1	1	100%
cease-and-desist declaration without penalty clause from partial group of defendants insufficient to preclude injunction	1	1	100%
immediately and directly enforceable decision under r. 354.1 rop does not require security under r. 118.2(a) rop	1	1	100%
provisional damages award alongside referral of full quantum to separate procedure	1	1	100%
problem-solution approach is not mandatory under epc/upca but may be applied as a cross-check	1	1	100%
amended claims must be assessed independently for inventive step against closest prior art	1	1	100%
where revocation fails only because patentee filed limitation during proceedings, costs may be apportioned (here 60/40)	1	1	100%

Most-rejected arguments

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

Argument	Party	Cases
lack of inventive step based on 'levi' as closest prior art combined with disclosure of hexagonal cells in heart valves	Claimant	1
all invalidity grounds raised against amended auxiliary request ii are well-founded	Claimant	1
revocation of ep 3 646 825 as granted (main request) on grounds of lack of novelty and/or inventive step	Claimant	1
lack of inventive step of ar ii claims over levi (closest prior art) in combination with teachings about hexagonal cells in heart valves	Claimant	1
ep 3 669 828 lacks inventive step and should be revoked	Respondent	1
cease-and-desist declarations filed by some meril defendants suffice to negate the need for a court injunction	Respondent	1
claim 1 as granted lacks inventive step / novelty over prior art including fontaine article	Claimant	1
all invalidity grounds (lack of inventive step, added matter, insufficiency) against auxiliary request ii	Claimant	1

Most-cited prior art

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

Reference	Predominant role	Cases
Levi (unspecified publication)	Obviousness combination	1
Fontaine (article)	Obviousness combination	1
WO 2013/012801	Background	1
EP 3 205 309	Background	1
EP 2 731 552	Background	1
Levi	Obviousness combination	1
Fontaine article	Obviousness combination	1
WO 2013/012801 (WO '801 / grandparent application)	Background	1
Levi (prior art document identified as closest prior art)	Obviousness combination	1
Fontaine article (prior art relied on for reduced crimping profile argument)	Obviousness combination	1
WO 2013/012801 (parent/grandparent application lineage)	Background	1