UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases2Decisions4Judges5Parties2Firms
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.

Legal principleBurden of proof for infringement in PI proceedings rests on applicant (R. 211.2 RoP)Clear all

Filtering to principle: Burden of proof for infringement in PI proceedings rests on applicant (R. 211.2 RoP)

Clear principle filter
Most-litigated legal principles
Recurring legal principles across 1 cases with reasoning extracted. Success rate counts patentee-favorable outcomes only.
PrincipleCasesDecidedPatentee success
added matter test: all claim elements must be directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed; selective combination of scattered fragments without clear indication is impermissible110%
burden of proof for infringement in pi proceedings rests on applicant (r. 211.2 rop)110%
a press release alone is insufficient evidence to demonstrate how accused software processes data110%
three months is a reasonable delay for pi preparation in complex multi-patent proceedings (r. 211.4 rop)110%
burden of proof for patent invalidity in pi proceedings rests on respondent110%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
three-month delay between learning of potential infringement and filing the pi application constitutes unreasonable delayRespondent1
indirect infringement under art. 26 upca should be found for ep 3 766 986 even if direct infringement not establishedClaimant1
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.