UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases2Decisions1Judges3Parties2Firms
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 principlethird-party and public interests considered in scope of corrective measures under Art. 64(4) UPCAClear all

Filtering to principle: third-party and public interests considered in scope of corrective measures under Art. 64(4) UPCA

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 over pre-upca infringement acts11100%
bifurcation and referral of counterclaim for revocation to central division11100%
stay of infringement proceedings post-central division decision limited to exceptional circumstances11100%
pan-upc injunctive relief under art. 34 upca upon proof of infringement in one contracting member state11100%
third-party and public interests considered in scope of corrective measures under art. 64(4) upca11100%
claimant's choice among competent german local divisions determines competence11100%
Most-rejected arguments
Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.
ArgumentPartyCases
stay of infringement proceedings warranted because central division paris decision was manifestly and prima facie erroneous for failing to consider key invalidity argumentsRespondent1
patent ep 3 646 825 is invalid (counterclaim for revocation)Respondent1
Most-cited prior art
References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.
ReferencePredominant roleCases
Levi (Exhibit HLNK 39)Obviousness combination1
Alon (Exhibit HLNK 49)Obviousness combination1
Fontaine (Exhibit HLNK 25)Obviousness combination1
EP 3 583 920 B1 (family member)Background1