Analytics 120Cases 90Decisions 44Judges 131Parties 32Firms

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 2 cases with reasoning extracted. Success rate counts patentee-favorable outcomes only.

Principle	Cases	Decided	Patentee success
provisional measures require sufficient certainty of patent validity, not merely the court's own view	2	2	0%
expert/written statements filed as replies to statement of defence are admissible if they constitute justified reactions to new defence arguments	1	1	100%
the fact a witness statement was originally drafted for parallel national proceedings does not render it inadmissible	1	1	100%
technical findings on infringement: knitted waffle-structure layer constitutes infringement of the protective workwear patent	1	1	100%
closure of proceedings by settlement under r. 360 rop	1	1	0%
60% court fee reimbursement on settlement before close of written procedure (r. 370.9(c)(i))	1	1	0%
settlement encompasses costs: no separate court costs order where parties have agreed	1	1	0%
confirmation of settlement as enforceable final decision under art. 79 upca	1	1	0%
court-facilitated settlement under case management powers (r. 332 rop)	1	1	0%
publication of redacted settlement only under r. 365 rop	1	1	0%
court fee reimbursement on settlement not automatic	1	1	0%
default judgment (contumacia): three conditions required — valid service, failure to comply with a deadline, and facts justifying the relief	1	1	100%
non-contestation principle: uncontested facts are deemed proven (r. 171.2 rop) but only against parties who chose to actively defend	1	1	100%
service of statement of claim without attachments is valid if the body of the claim gives sufficient understanding (r. 271 rop)	1	1	100%
absence/default of defendant is a procedurally neutral circumstance; automatic acceptance of claims is excluded (art. 54 upca)	1	1	100%
ex parte provisional measures available where prior notification would defeat the purpose of the relief (r. 206.3(a) rop)	1	1	100%
trade fair context creates special urgency justifying ex parte approach	1	1	100%
security must be provided by applicant as condition of enforceability (art. 60.5 upca)	1	1	100%
merits proceedings must be commenced within 31 calendar days or 20 working days or the order is revocable on respondent's request	1	1	100%
ex parte seizure at trade fair granted but ex parte injunction declined — partial ex parte relief based on proportionality	1	1	100%

Most-rejected arguments

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

Argument	Party	Cases
exclusion of expert statements and associated claimant reasoning from proceedings	Respondent	1
60% reimbursement of court fees (eur 6,600) requested by edwards under r. 370.9(c) and 370.11 rop	Claimant	1
injunction (inibitoria) should also be granted ex parte	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
literal infringement of claim features 1(d)(iii), 1(h), 1(j) and 1(k)(iii) of ep 1 910 572 by hcr products	Claimant	1
infringement by equivalence for the missing 'non-overlapping' feature 1(h)	Claimant	1
application to amend the patent (auxiliary requests) should be admitted	Claimant	1
infringement action for ep 2 726 230 b1	Claimant	1
provisional measures application for preliminary injunction against celltrion entities regarding ep 3 805 248 b1	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
preliminary injunction against samsung bioepis based on ep 3 167 888 b1	Claimant	1
preliminary injunction against amgen entities based on ep 3 167 888 b1	Claimant	1
stay of proceedings pending revocation counterclaim by different defendant in parallel action	Respondent	1
full costs offset in oerlikon's favour should be denied due to oerlikon expanding settlement demands during negotiations	Respondent	1

Most-cited prior art

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

Reference	Predominant role	Cases
NHSC document (clinical/regulatory document disclosing cabazitaxel antitumour use in docetaxel-pretreated patients)	Novelty-destroying	1
WO 2007/001986 A2 (WO986) — EP572 priority document	Background	1
Prior use (Girderflex machine) at EUR 2,000,000 price point	Novelty-destroying	1