UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions4Judges3Parties0Firms
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 patent invalidity in PI proceedings rests with respondentClear all

Filtering to principle: Burden of proof for patent invalidity in PI proceedings rests with respondent

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
device claim scope covers structural embodiments even where claimed function is not fully realised (inferior embodiments)110%
in pi proceedings, once respondent specifically contests infringement allegations, applicant must rebut with facts establishing infringement to the required degree of certainty; expert evidence is generally unavailable110%
burden of proof for patent invalidity in pi proceedings rests with respondent110%
when parties submit conflicting translations of prior art, the respondent bears the burden of substantiating its preferred translation110%
urgency in pi proceedings assessed holistically; reasonable delay for investigation and targeted trade fair confirmation does not defeat urgency110%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
infringement is established: the accused occlusion devices fall within the scope of ep 1 998 686 b2Claimant1
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.