UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions3Judges2Parties3Firms
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 principleGrounds for revocation of dependent claims must be stated from the outsetClear all

Filtering to principle: Grounds for revocation of dependent claims must be stated from the outset

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
lack of novelty and lack of inventive step are separate grounds for revocation and cannot be absorbed when asserted against the same prior art11100%
providing a detailed analysis only for inventive step does not establish a separate novelty challenge11100%
grounds for revocation of dependent claims must be stated from the outset11100%
problem-solution approach: prior art must provide a pointer to motivate the skilled person to make the required modification11100%
r. 75(3) rop does not apply to block a revocation counterclaim filed after the oral hearing in an earlier central division revocation action (flexibility principle)11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
claim 1 of ep 3 831 283 b1 lacks novelty over wo'896Claimant1
claim 1 lacks inventive step starting from wo'896 combined with us'440Claimant1
r. 75(3) rop bars a new counterclaim for revocation concerning the same patent after an earlier revocation actionRespondent1
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
ReferencePredominant roleCases
WO'896 (glucose monitoring prior art)Obviousness combination1
US'440 (glucose sensor assembly prior art)Obviousness combination1