UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions4Judges3Parties1Firms
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 principletemporal urgency for provisional measures under R. 211.4 RoPClear all

Filtering to principle: temporal urgency for provisional measures under R. 211.4 RoP

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
temporal urgency for provisional measures under r. 211.4 rop110%
urgency assessed from when applicant knew or should have known of infringement110%
delay in analysing known facts cannot revive urgency110%
costs follow the event in pi proceedings110%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
cilag had urgency because it only became aware of the true extent of infringement and market risk (sana acceptance, price erosion risk) in april 2025Claimant1
david vs. goliath argument: cilag's larger market position vs. rivolution's smaller size creates special urgencyClaimant1
applications to submit further evidence after the oral hearing should be admittedClaimant1
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.