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 |
|---|---|---|
| upc lacks jurisdiction because sun patent trust seeks a frand ruling as its main claim, which falls outside upc jurisdiction | Respondent | 1 |
| paris local division lacks internal competence because no defendant is domiciled in france | Respondent | 1 |
| infringement is established: the accused occlusion devices fall within the scope of ep 1 998 686 b2 | Claimant | 1 |
| claim 1 lacks novelty over cited prior art range disclosures | Claimant | 1 |
| claim 1 lacks inventive step starting from d14 (float process glass) combined with d16 (refining agents) | Claimant | 1 |
| inventive step challenged by reference to chinese supreme people's court judgment on a related chinese patent | Claimant | 1 |
| experimental report d41 relevant to patentability of auxiliary requests | Claimant | 1 |
| main request (granted claims) should be maintained in full | Respondent | 1 |
| auxiliary request i is allowable | Respondent | 1 |
| auxiliary request ii is allowable | Respondent | 1 |
| composition claims are novel and inventive as drafted with numerical ranges of ingredients | Respondent | 1 |
| application to amend the patent (unconditional and subsequent auxiliary requests) | Respondent | 1 |
| english is the commonly used language in the relevant field of technology, justifying language change | Respondent | 1 |
| nvidia is significantly impaired in organising its defence in german | Respondent | 1 |
| inventive step attack based on documents already in the proceedings, raised for the first time at oral hearing | Respondent | 1 |
| counterclaim for revocation: ep 2 476 814 b1 is invalid | Respondent | 1 |
| remaining requests in the infringement action | Claimant | 1 |
| the patent as amended (auxiliary requests ar1-ar1-24) should be maintained as valid | Claimant | 1 |
| security for costs should be set at no more than eur 100,000 and may be provided by a us bank guarantee | Claimant | 1 |
| the written witness statement of dr. raleigh qualifies as a full witness statement under r. 175 rop | Claimant | 1 |
| publication of the judgment in trade press should be ordered | Claimant | 1 |
| patent is invalid due to added matter (überschreitung der ursprungsoffenbarung) | Respondent | 1 |
| security for costs should be ordered against 10x genomics in the provisional measures proceedings | Respondent | 1 |
| ep 3 666 797 b1 main request and all 17 auxiliary requests are valid and inventive | Respondent | 1 |
| literal infringement of the patent on the medical device (sleep apnea treatment) by orthoapnea and vivisol products | Claimant | 1 |
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
| Reference | Predominant role | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| D14 | Obviousness combination | 1 |
| D16 | Obviousness combination | 1 |
| D19 | Obviousness combination | 1 |
| D40 (expert opinion) | Background | 1 |
| D41 (experimental report) | Background | 1 |
| D42-D45 (Chinese court judgment) | Background | 1 |
| ZP8-ZP9 (late-filed documents admitted in response to AR1-24) | Obviousness combination | 1 |
| prior art starting points in the anti-PCSK9 antibody field (multiple realistic starting points identified by Central Division) | Obviousness combination | 1 |