Analytics 46Cases 27Decisions 28Judges 114Parties 23Firms

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
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%
device claim scope covers structural embodiments even where claimed function is not fully realised (inferior embodiments)	1	1	0%
in pi proceedings, once respondent specifically contests infringement allegations, applicant must rebut with facts establishing infringement to the required degree of certainty; expert evidence is generally unavailable	1	1	0%
burden of proof for patent invalidity in pi proceedings rests with respondent	1	1	0%
when parties submit conflicting translations of prior art, the respondent bears the burden of substantiating its preferred translation	1	1	0%
urgency in pi proceedings assessed holistically; reasonable delay for investigation and targeted trade fair confirmation does not defeat urgency	1	1	0%
deemed service under r. 275.2 rop applies in pi proceedings when hague convention service through foreign central authority stalls for months without progress	1	1	100%
the six-month formal waiting period under art. 15(2) hague convention cannot apply without restriction in urgent pi proceedings (art. 15(3) hague convention recognised)	1	1	100%
where a chinese defendant fails to lodge an objection following deemed service, the court may proceed to determine the pi on the merits	1	1	100%
deemed good service under r. 275.2 rop where hague convention service fails	1	1	100%
art. 15(2) hague convention six-month period inapplicable without restriction in pi proceedings	1	1	100%
decision on pi application based on applicant's submissions alone where defendant fails to object	1	1	100%
effective judicial protection requires alternative service options where formal service is futile	1	1	100%
pi proceedings: regular order rather than default decision where defendant was given opportunity to respond	1	1	100%
non-appearance at oral hearing in pi proceedings: merits decision not limited to default judgment	1	1	100%
duty to substantively contest specific factual allegations under r. 171.2 rop	1	1	100%
general denial insufficient where applicant provides specific supporting facts	1	1	100%
contested facts deemed undisputed if defendant fails to specifically deny them	1	1	100%

Most-rejected arguments

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

Argument	Party	Cases
infringement is established: the accused occlusion devices fall within the scope of ep 1 998 686 b2	Claimant	1
application dismissed in all other aspects against defendant 1	Claimant	1
remaining aspects of application (not specified in available excerpt)	Claimant	1
patent ep 3 686 683 b1 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)	Respondent	1
additional test-purchase evidence should be admitted as further pleading under r. 36 rop	Claimant	1
patent ep 2 061 575 b1 lacks inventive step based on named prior art documents (revocation counterclaim)	Respondent	1
recall, removal from channels of commerce, and destruction ordered for indirectly infringing products	Claimant	1
interim award of lump-sum damages (r. 119 rop) without specific factual basis	Claimant	1
exhaustion defence: products supplied by patent holder exhaust patent rights	Respondent	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.