UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions0Judges5Parties1Firms
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 principleCosts apportionment where each party succeeds on one claimClear all

Filtering to principle: Costs apportionment where each party succeeds on one claim

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
purposive claim construction — scope of protection determined by claims, not broader description110%
non-infringement based on failure to meet single essential claim feature is sufficient for dismissal of infringement action110%
separate treatment of infringement and validity110%
costs apportionment where each party succeeds on one claim110%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
direct infringement of ep 1 651 838 (glazing system patent) by maars' horizon productsClaimant1
revocation of ep 1 651 838 (counterclaim for revocation by maars)Respondent1
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.