UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions4Judges3Parties4Firms
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 both parties partially succeedClear all

Filtering to principle: costs apportionment where both parties partially succeed

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
product-by-process claim construction: technical properties conferred by process are decisive11100%
upc jurisdiction over art. 67 epc compensation for use during application publication period11100%
destruction as corrective measure; software deactivation insufficient unless re-enablement impossible11100%
costs apportionment where both parties partially succeed11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
patent ep 3 356 109 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)Respondent1
third-party counterclaim (dritt-widerklage) against alexander christ should succeedRespondent1
software-based deactivation of infringing function is an alternative to destructionRespondent1
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.