UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics91Cases31Decisions37Judges177Parties21Firms
Filing trendsOutcomesPendencyTechnologyForum strategyLeading casesLegal issuesSecurity 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.
PrincipleCasesDecidedPatentee success
added matter: subject matter of a patent extending beyond the content of the original parent application renders claims invalid (art. 76(1) epc)110%
added matter assessed against all text, claims, passages and drawings of the parent application individually and in overall context110%
amendment application not addressing the operative revocation ground (added matter) cannot save the patent110%
if the claims relied on in infringement are revoked, the infringement action necessarily fails110%
added matter (lack of original disclosure) is assessed against the parent application as a whole, not just individual passages110%
patent claims invalid for added matter if neither the explicit text nor the drawings of the parent application disclose the claimed feature combination110%
auxiliary requests to amend must address the specific invalidity ground to be relevant110%
where asserted claims are invalid, the infringement action must be dismissed110%
security for costs dismissed where defendant fails to evidence that enforcement against us-based claimant would be unduly burdensome110%
recurring licensing revenues from an npe can negate insolvency risk for security-for-costs purposes110%
mere status as npe insufficient to justify security for costs110%
withdrawal of infringement action permissible before appeal period expires where parties consent and have no legitimate interest in appeal (coa_569/2014 applied)110%
decision on infringement action including costs becomes ineffective upon permitted withdrawal under r. 265 rop110%
upc has no jurisdiction over national patent parts that lapsed before 1 june 2023 or over non-upca member states11100%
prior use right (art. 28 upca / german law) requires proof of firm decision to use before priority date; burden on defendant11100%
prior use right facts must be presented in statement of defence / counterclaim; subsequent briefs limited to responding to reply11100%
maximum daily penalty is appropriate where non-compliance with information obligations is evident, persistent, and the result of deliberate choice11100%
setting of penalties is in the court's interest and not capped by claimant's request11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
applications to amend the patent (auxiliary requests) should cure the added-matter defectRespondent1
claims 1 and 11 of ep 3 972 309 are infringed by asus devicesClaimant1
claims 1 and 11 are supported by the parent application and do not go beyond its contentClaimant1
auxiliary requests to amend the patent should cure the added-matter defectClaimant1
samsung should be ordered to provide security for costs against headwaterRespondent1
counterclaim for revocation of ep 3 511 174Respondent1
private prior use right under german law (art. 28 upca)Respondent1
penalties imposed were disproportionate given pending legal questions on upc enforcementRespondent1
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
ReferencePredominant roleCases
WO [379] (prior art document cited in preparatory order in context of novelty/inventive step)Obviousness combination1
EP 452 (prior art document cited in preparatory order for novelty and inventive step analysis)Novelty-destroying1
EP 968 (cited in preparatory order for inventive step combination)Obviousness combination1