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 |
|---|---|---|
| cilag had urgency because it only became aware of the true extent of infringement and market risk (sana acceptance, price erosion risk) in april 2025 | Claimant | 1 |
| david vs. goliath argument: cilag's larger market position vs. rivolution's smaller size creates special urgency | Claimant | 1 |
| applications to submit further evidence after the oral hearing should be admitted | Claimant | 1 |
| feature of connector support received through distal-facing opening into recess is supported by multiple passages and figures in the application as filed | Claimant | 1 |
| provisional reimbursement of costs ordered in favour of applicant | Claimant | 1 |
| orbisk's food waste monitoring system infringes ep 3 198 245 | Claimant | 1 |
| r. 190 rop application for document production | Claimant | 1 |
| declaration that glucomen ican is 'goods suspected of infringing an ip right' under eu regulation 608/2013 should be granted as a provisional measure | Claimant | 1 |
| information order should include price, sales numbers, and cost data | Claimant | 1 |
| information disclosure should be subject to confidentiality | Respondent | 1 |
| glucomen ican infringes claim 1 (feature 1.13(c)) because the event icons appear on the same screen as the timeline graph | Claimant | 1 |
| information order extending to prices and numbers of cabinets sold (for damages calculation) | Claimant | 1 |
| 60% reimbursement of court fees (eur 6,600) requested by edwards under r. 370.9(c) and 370.11 rop | Claimant | 1 |
| abm's belated (oral hearing) challenge that jp748 is not a realistic starting point for inventive step | Claimant | 1 |
| dependent claim 2 (adaptive feedback) saves the patent | Claimant | 1 |
| infringement of ep 2 437 696 b2 by philips' sleep therapy devices | Claimant | 1 |
| representative's illness prevented timely filing of sod and re-establishment of rights under r. 320 should be granted | Respondent | 1 |
| default decision should be set aside under r. 356 rop | Respondent | 1 |
| counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement of revised product (new product 2) is admissible | Respondent | 1 |
| patent lacks inventive step / contains added matter (counterclaim for revocation) | Respondent | 1 |
| application to deposit three further physical objects (bb40a-c) as late exhibits | Respondent | 1 |
| invalidity of ep 2 839 083 b9 as originally granted (revocation counterclaim) | Respondent | 1 |
| infringement is impossible due to features outside the patent claim that prevent the patented function from being achieved | Respondent | 1 |
| requested case value of eur 500,000 for determining recoverable-costs ceiling | 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 |
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
| Reference | Predominant role | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| WO 2011/119896 | Distinguished | 1 |
| JP748 (Japanese patent on position therapy device, circa 1990/1991) | Novelty-destroying | 1 |
| P25 (Handbook of Modern Sensors, 2003) | Background | 1 |
| P28 (textbook for sleep medicine, evidencing accelerometers in wrist actigraphy) | Background | 1 |
| WO 2007/001986 A2 (WO986) — EP572 priority document | Background | 1 |
| D12, D13, D14 (prior art documents referenced in proceedings) | Obviousness combination | 1 |