UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions4Judges3Parties2Firms
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 principleClaimant under Art. 54 UPCA not required to address features outside the claim scopeClear all

Filtering to principle: Claimant under Art. 54 UPCA not required to address features outside the claim scope

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 infringement requires only capability (eignung) to achieve the patented function, not regular or intended achievement11100%
defendant bears burden of proving impossibility of infringement when relying on features outside the patent claim11100%
claimant under art. 54 upca not required to address features outside the claim scope11100%
patent can be maintained in amended form via auxiliary requests to avoid invalidity while preserving infringement finding11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
invalidity of ep 2 839 083 b9 as originally granted (revocation counterclaim)Respondent1
infringement is impossible due to features outside the patent claim that prevent the patented function from being achievedRespondent1
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.