UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions4Judges2Parties1Firms
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 principleapplicant in failed pi proceedings may be ordered to pay interim cost award (r. 211.1(d) rop)Clear all

Filtering to principle: applicant in failed pi proceedings may be ordered to pay interim cost award (r. 211.1(d) rop)

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 of display features: elements appearing on the same screen are not necessarily 'within' a specific sub-region of the display110%
non-infringement finding renders it unnecessary to assess validity arguments110%
applicant in failed pi proceedings may be ordered to pay interim cost award (r. 211.1(d) rop)110%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
glucomen ican infringes claim 1 (feature 1.13(c)) because the event icons appear on the same screen as the timeline graphClaimant1
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.