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 principledestruction as corrective measure; software deactivation insufficient unless re-enabling impossibleClear all

Filtering to principle: destruction as corrective measure; software deactivation insufficient unless re-enabling impossible

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
direct and indirect infringement where customer activation of infringing features is instructed or knowingly exploited11100%
destruction as corrective measure; software deactivation insufficient unless re-enabling impossible11100%
discretion to order publication of decision under art. 80 upca; normally only where other measures insufficient11100%
costs apportionment in proceedings with partial success on both sides11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
patent ep 3 466 498 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation) — novelty and inventive stepRespondent1
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.