Legal issues

Cross-cutting view of legal principles, recurring arguments, and the prior art the court relies on.

Filtering to principle: Art. 34 UPCA (territorial scope) is distinct from jurisdiction under Arts. 31-33 UPCA and R. 19 RoP

Most-litigated legal principles

Recurring legal principles across 1 cases with reasoning extracted. Success rate counts patentee-favorable outcomes only.

Principle	Cases	Decided	Patentee success
added matter — intermediate generalisation requires demonstration that features are inextricably linked	1	1	0%
skilled person understands illustrative embodiment features need not be essential to the invention	1	1	0%
art. 34 upca (territorial scope) is distinct from jurisdiction under arts. 31-33 upca and r. 19 rop	1	1	0%
long-arm jurisdiction over non-cms states follows cjeu bsh v electrolux	1	1	0%
burden of proof for infringement in non-cms territory lies with claimant (r. 13m, r. 171.1 rop)	1	1	0%
interim costs award requires evidentiary substantiation	1	1	0%

Most-rejected arguments

Arguments that the UPC has not accepted, ranked by repeat occurrences across cases.

Argument	Party	Cases
amended claims contain added matter due to unallowable intermediate generalisation (eight features alleged to be inextricably linked)	Respondent	1
article 34 upca objection falls within scope of preliminary objection under r. 19 rop	Respondent	1
infringement claim in poland based on general european accessibility of websites and aggregate european turnover	Claimant	1
nuc's request for interim costs award of eur 175,000	Respondent	1

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.