UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases2Decisions3Judges5Parties0Firms
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 principleno enforcement security required where applicant is a well-known manufacturerClear all

Filtering to principle: no enforcement security required where applicant is a well-known manufacturer

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
upc jurisdiction regardless of defendant's domicile (art. 71b(2) upca)11100%
anchor defendant and close connection under art. 8(1) brussels i recast11100%
eu authorized representative as intermediary under art. 63(1) upca11100%
eu authorized representative as anchor defendant in patent infringement proceedings11100%
plausible allegation of infringing acts required for national part jurisdiction11100%
no enforcement security required where applicant is a well-known manufacturer11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
application for provisional measures as to remaining embodiments (second group of attacked products)Claimant1
international jurisdiction for spanish national part of defendant 4 (dreame technology ab)Claimant1
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.