ENDE

Account

Analytics 1Cases 1Decisions 4Judges 2Parties 0Firms

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

number of validity arguments in PI proceedings limited to best three from respondent's perspective

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

number of validity arguments in PI proceedings limited to best three from respondent's perspective

Cites UPC case

Cites authority

Had oral hearing

Parties

Filing frequency, side mix, win records, firms typically retained — by corporate group or standalone party.

Show:

Legal principlenumber of validity arguments in PI proceedings limited to best three from respondent's perspective Clear all

Top corporate groups

Combined filings across grouped entities.

Group	Total cases	Claimant-side	Respondent-side

Top standalone parties

Parties not yet rolled into a corporate group.

Party	Total cases	Claimant-side	Respondent-side
(Applicant not named in excerpt - proprietor of patent for herbicide composition)	1	1	0
(Respondents not named in excerpt - manufacturers/distributors of Kagura herbicide)	1	0	1