UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases3Decisions3Judges4Parties4Firms
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 principlecourt has discretionary power to deny injunction where disproportionate (art. 63(1) upca)Clear all

Filtering to principle: court has discretionary power to deny injunction where disproportionate (art. 63(1) 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
holistic approach to inventive step: assess non-obviousness of the invention as a whole11100%
realistic starting point for inventive step is a document addressing the same or similar problem11100%
court has discretionary power to deny injunction where disproportionate (art. 63(1) upca)11100%
excluding a product from market does not per se engage relevant public interest unless patients would be left without adequate treatment11100%
technical objective problem must be derived from effects causally related to claimed technical features11100%
a 'decision on the merits' under r. 150 rop requires litigation proceedings with res judicata effect; public-access proceedings do not qualify11100%
cms technical malfunction can justify retrospective time extension (r. 9(3)(a) rop)11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
revocation of ep 4 151 181 b1 as granted for lack of inventive stepClaimant1
edwards' counterclaim for infringement is inadmissible as filed outside the two-month deadline under r. 49 ropClaimant1
injunction should extend to xl-size prosthetic heart valves (exceeding 30 mm diameter)Respondent1
costs application for eur 15,000 arising from rejected public-access-to-register proceedingsClaimant1
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.