ENDE

Account

Analytics 1Cases 1Decisions 3Judges 2Parties 4Firms

Filters

Case number

Patent number

Filing date

→

Decision date

→

Division

Language

Category

Subcategory

Substantive (main) cases only

Proceeding type

Action type

Status

Outcome

Outcome detail

Motion type

Settlement timing

Technology (L1)

Technology sector

CPC code

SEP / FRAND

Judge

Claimant

Respondent

Firm

Corporate group

Entity type

Has security order

Security status

Legal principle

Power consumption constraints relevant to assessing whether cross-field combination is obvious

Cites UPC case

Cites authority

Had oral hearing

Filters

Case number

Patent number

Filing date

→

Decision date

→

Division

Language

Category

Subcategory

Substantive (main) cases only

Proceeding type

Action type

Status

Outcome

Outcome detail

Motion type

Settlement timing

Technology (L1)

Technology sector

CPC code

SEP / FRAND

Judge

Claimant

Respondent

Firm

Corporate group

Entity type

Has security order

Security status

Legal principle

Power consumption constraints relevant to assessing whether cross-field combination is obvious

Cites UPC case

Cites authority

Had oral hearing

Firm scorecards

Activity, side mix, division specialization, top clients.

Legal principlePower consumption constraints relevant to assessing whether cross-field combination is obvious Clear all

Top firms in scope

Click a firm name for their profile. Counts are case-level — a firm appearing on both sides of one case counts once per side.

Firm	Cases	Claimant-side	Respondent-side	Attorneys	Top divisions
McDermott Will & Emery	1	1	0	1	Paris CD (1)
Cohausz & Florack	1	1	0	1	Paris CD (1)
Thum & Partner / Thum, Mötsch, Weickert Patentanwälte	1	0	1	1	Paris CD (1)
Bardehle Pagenberg	1	0	1	1	Paris CD (1)