UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases7Decisions4Judges3Parties4Firms
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 principleIndirect infringement through supply of essential components under Art. 64 UPCAClear all

Filtering to principle: Indirect infringement through supply of essential components under Art. 64 UPCA

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
two-step infringement analysis: first literal infringement under art. 69 epc, then equivalence if literal infringement not found11100%
equivalence test (four questions): (1) technical equivalence solving same problem; (2) fair protection for patentee; (3) reasonable legal certainty for third parties; (4) alleged infringing product must be novel and inventive over prior art11100%
court may order specific text of customer recall letters and website publications under art. 64 upca and union law11100%
indirect infringement through supply of essential components under art. 64 upca11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
bioo products do not literally infringe claim 11 of ep 2137782Respondent1
counterclaim for revocation of ep 2137782Respondent1
bioo ed and other products are not essential components for the patented methodRespondent1
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.