UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases3Decisions4Judges2Parties0Firms
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 principleDirect infringement under Art. 25 UPCA does not require prior notice of the patent to the defendantClear all

Filtering to principle: Direct infringement under Art. 25 UPCA does not require prior notice of the patent to the defendant

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
direct infringement under art. 25 upca does not require prior notice of the patent to the defendant11100%
upc applies arts. 25-26 upca as substantive infringement law, not national law, including for acts before 1 june 202311100%
novelty: invention must be found in its entirety in a single prior art document in the same form, arrangement, and functioning for the same technical result11100%
in french-language proceedings, claim interpretation arguments are assessed by reference to the application as originally filed in english11100%
claim interpretation follows upc court of appeal standards (upc_coa_335/2023 and upc_coa_1/2024)11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
exhaustion defence / competition law argument as a defence to infringementRespondent1
invalidity counterclaim: patent claims lack novelty, involve added matter, lack inventive step, or are insufficientRespondent1
upc claim interpretation must be based on french-language patent application rather than the original english-language applicationRespondent1
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.