Analytics 45Cases 31Decisions 21Judges 62Parties 20Firms

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
frand	1	1	100%
sep infringement — injunction not automatically barred by frand commitment where defendant's counterclaim fails on the merits	1	1	100%
added matter: subject matter of a patent extending beyond the content of the original parent application renders claims invalid (art. 76(1) epc)	1	1	0%
added matter assessed against all text, claims, passages and drawings of the parent application individually and in overall context	1	1	0%
amendment application not addressing the operative revocation ground (added matter) cannot save the patent	1	1	0%
if the claims relied on in infringement are revoked, the infringement action necessarily fails	1	1	0%
added matter (lack of original disclosure) is assessed against the parent application as a whole, not just individual passages	1	1	0%
patent claims invalid for added matter if neither the explicit text nor the drawings of the parent application disclose the claimed feature combination	1	1	0%
auxiliary requests to amend must address the specific invalidity ground to be relevant	1	1	0%
where asserted claims are invalid, the infringement action must be dismissed	1	1	0%
frand counterclaim is a substantive defence to sep infringement proceedings that can be adjudicated by the upc	1	1	100%
confidentiality regime for licence agreements in sep proceedings: structured multi-step upload/protect process under r.190/191, 262, 262a rop	1	1	100%
parties concluding licence agreements with broad confidentiality clauses cannot use those clauses to delay production of licences ordered by the court	1	1	100%
damages liability for sep infringement may run from the date of predecessor rights assignment, not only from claimant's ownership date	1	1	100%
patent can be revoked for anticipation (lack of novelty) by a single prior art document disclosing all claimed features	1	1	0%
dependent claims fall if independent claims they depend on are invalid, where not independently defended	1	1	0%
claim amendment in auxiliary request must actually narrow scope to overcome prior art; clarification that does not narrow scope does not assist validity	1	1	0%
infringement action is dismissed without further analysis where patent is revoked	1	1	0%

Most-rejected arguments

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

Argument	Party	Cases
invalidity counterclaim against ep 2 568 724 b1	Respondent	1
frand counterclaim — willingness to take a frand license precluding injunction	Respondent	1
applications to amend the patent (auxiliary requests) should cure the added-matter defect	Respondent	1
claims 1 and 11 of ep 3 972 309 are infringed by asus devices	Claimant	1
claims 1 and 11 are supported by the parent application and do not go beyond its content	Claimant	1
auxiliary requests to amend the patent should cure the added-matter defect	Claimant	1
counterclaim for revocation of ep 2 568 724	Respondent	1
frand counterclaim: defendants should not be subject to injunction/damages because panasonic failed to offer a frand licence	Respondent	1
auxiliary request to amend claim 1 to require all three outputs (normalized complex signal, offset information, and transmit property information) simultaneously	Claimant	1
tesla's vehicles infringe ep 1838002 (programmable hybrid transmitter patent)	Claimant	1

Most-cited prior art

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

Reference	Predominant role	Cases
D3	Novelty-destroying	1