UPC Analytics
ENDE

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
intermediate generalisation as inadmissible extension under art. 123(2) and (3) epc110%
prior art must be in same technical field or one skilled person would consult for the problem posed110%
novelty and inventive step under art. 54 and 56 epc110%
auxiliary requests admissible even if numerous where their core is small110%
patent partially revoked and maintained in amended form (auxiliary requests 1 and 2)110%
urgency for pi requires prompt investigation upon knowledge of infringement110%
three-month delay without significant clarification steps defeats urgency110%
doctrine of equivalents: assessment focuses on how the technical effect is achieved, not merely that an effect is produced110%
description passage identifying acceleration as 'additional' to sound sensing precludes treating acceleration as an equivalent alternative110%
costs of protective letter are 'other costs' of proceedings under art. 69(1) upca110%
a claimant may withdraw an infringement action at any time before a final decision if the defendant has no legitimate interest in continuation (r. 265.1 rop)110%
settlement-based withdrawal is permissible before final decision where defendants have no legitimate interest in continuation (r. 265.1 rop)110%
60% court fee reimbursement applies where action is withdrawn before closure of written procedure (r. 370.9(b)(i); r. 370.11 rop)110%
ce-mark approval for a medical device signals imminent market entry across all eu member states and constitutes an indication of imminent infringement under r. 206.2(c) rop11100%
applicant's prior knowledge of the accused device before ce-mark approval is irrelevant to urgency; the ce mark is the relevant triggering event11100%
ce-mark approval combined with public trade fair announcement and provision of ordering information constitutes 'setting the stage to market' for purposes of imminent infringement11100%
defendants seeking security must substantiate potential damage with specifics including sales price and volume projections11100%
urgency and necessity for provisional measures11100%
preliminary assessment of infringement (more likely than not)11100%
scope of information orders limited to cessation of infringement11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
patent as granted is valid and infringed by xiaomi's wireless charging productsClaimant1
number of auxiliary requests is unduly burdensome on defendantsRespondent1
connected ball technology infringes the patent by using sensor data to determine ball contactClaimant1
infringement by equivalents — accelerometer processing equivalent to sound-signal comparisonClaimant1
auxiliary requests based on amended claims (adding acceleration sensing) establish infringementClaimant1
security/enforcement bond should be ordered against occlutechRespondent1
information order extending to prices and numbers of cabinets sold (for damages calculation)Claimant1
barco's delay in filing was not unreasonable given complexity of infringement analysisClaimant1
rectification of final order to add the word 'interim' to costs award was warranted under r. 353 ropClaimant1
literal infringement of the patent on the medical device (sleep apnea treatment) by orthoapnea and vivisol productsClaimant1
infringement by equivalence of the same patent claimsClaimant1
bioo products do not literally infringe claim 11 of ep 2137782Respondent1
counterclaim for revocation of ep 2137782Respondent1
bioo ed and other products are not essential components for the patented methodRespondent1
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.