UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions1Judges2Parties4Firms
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 principleinventive step assessment is objective — subjective knowledge of inventors or parties irrelevantClear all

Filtering to principle: inventive step assessment is objective — subjective knowledge of inventors or parties irrelevant

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
inventive step assessment is objective — subjective knowledge of inventors or parties irrelevant11100%
dispositive principle: court evaluates only revocation grounds actually raised by claimant (art. 76(1) upca)11100%
front-loading obligation balanced by fairness: further substantiation of initial argument permitted in response to opponent's challenge11100%
problem-solution approach: motivation to combine prior art must be established11100%
dependent claim validity follows claim 1 where claimant raises no specific dependent-claim arguments11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
ep 3 504 991 b1 lacks novelty over cohenClaimant1
claim 1 invalid for lack of inventive stepClaimant1
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
ReferencePredominant roleCases
CohenNovelty-destroying1
Chen (CN 101843368 A)Background1
Thompson (US 2013/0192617 A1)Background1