UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases2Decisions3Judges2Parties2Firms
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 principleinterdependency of claim features in objective problem formulationClear all

Filtering to principle: interdependency of claim features in objective problem formulation

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
problem-solution approach to inventive step11100%
hindsight in selection of closest prior art starting point11100%
interdependency of claim features in objective problem formulation11100%
disclosure of numerical ranges and novelty11100%
purposive non-use of a component as a technical feature distinguishing over prior art11100%
reasonable expectation of success11100%
motivation and pointer in inventive step assessment11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
claim 1 lacks novelty over cited prior art range disclosuresClaimant1
claim 1 lacks inventive step starting from d14 (float process glass) combined with d16 (refining agents)Claimant1
inventive step challenged by reference to chinese supreme people's court judgment on a related chinese patentClaimant1
experimental report d41 relevant to patentability of auxiliary requestsClaimant1
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
ReferencePredominant roleCases
D14Obviousness combination1
D16Obviousness combination1
D19Obviousness combination1
D40 (expert opinion)Background1
D41 (experimental report)Background1
D42-D45 (Chinese court judgment)Background1