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 |
|---|---|---|
| case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over non-eu defendants (zhejiang geely holding group and geely automobile holdings ltd.) | Respondent | 1 |
| business relationship under art. 33(1)(b) requires direct commercial ties between all defendants across different brand groups within the geely conglomerate | Respondent | 1 |
| remaining aspects of application (not specified in available excerpt) | Claimant | 1 |
| security (sicherheitsleistung) should be required before granting provisional measures | Respondent | 1 |
| market saturation from infringing products and long-term customer lock-in create irreparable harm justifying provisional measures | Claimant | 1 |
| ongoing tenders in italy creating long-term binding commitments justify urgent provisional measures | 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 |
| exhaustion: defendants' filter cartridges are legitimately supplied replacement parts for products placed on market by brita | Respondent | 1 |
| patent claims as originally granted are valid (revocation counterclaim) | Respondent | 1 |
| where patentee defends only via auxiliary requests (amended claims), court must first consider whether original claims are partially invalid under art. 65(3) upca | Respondent | 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 |
| all auxiliary requests to amend the patent to overcome the added-matter objection | Claimant | 1 |
| infringement of ep 3 223 320 by expert e-commerce and expert klein for led products | Claimant | 1 |
| a defendant that did not file its own revocation counterclaim can still benefit from invalidity arguments in its defence | 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.