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 |
|---|---|---|
| amended claims contain added matter due to unallowable intermediate generalisation (eight features alleged to be inextricably linked) | Respondent | 1 |
| article 34 upca objection falls within scope of preliminary objection under r. 19 rop | Respondent | 1 |
| infringement claim in poland based on general european accessibility of websites and aggregate european turnover | Claimant | 1 |
| nuc's request for interim costs award of eur 175,000 | Respondent | 1 |
| 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 |
| three-month delay between learning of potential infringement and filing the pi application constitutes unreasonable delay | Respondent | 1 |
| indirect infringement under art. 26 upca should be found for ep 3 766 986 even if direct infringement not established | Claimant | 1 |
| counterclaim for revocation: patent lacks validity | Respondent | 1 |
| alleged disproportionate harm from injunction (late-filed claim about magnitude of damage) | Respondent | 1 |
| counterclaim for nullity of claims 1 and 6 of the amended patent and subsidiary requests | Respondent | 1 |
| infringement of the swiss national part of the patent should also be found | Claimant | 1 |
| decision should be disseminated to mul-t-lock's customers | Claimant | 1 |
| the ghost product infringes claim 1 by equivalence because longitudinal alignment of spacers and openings serves the same function of improving water flow | Claimant | 1 |
| diagrams presented by claimant showed improved water trajectory justifying equivalence finding | Claimant | 1 |
| exhaustion defence / competition law argument as a defence to infringement | Respondent | 1 |
| invalidity counterclaim: patent claims lack novelty, involve added matter, lack inventive step, or are insufficient | Respondent | 1 |
| upc claim interpretation must be based on french-language patent application rather than the original english-language application | Respondent | 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 |
| ep 3435866 is novel and inventive; dependent claims 2–9 are independently valid | Claimant | 1 |
| infringement of ep 3435866 by abbott entities' continuous glucose monitoring devices | Claimant | 1 |
| abbott's carve-out defence limits scope of revocation counterclaim to upc-claimed territories | Claimant | 1 |
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.