Legal issues

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

Filtering to principle: Setting of penalties is in the court's interest and not capped by claimant's request

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
upc has no jurisdiction over national patent parts that lapsed before 1 june 2023 or over non-upca member states	1	1	100%
prior use right (art. 28 upca / german law) requires proof of firm decision to use before priority date; burden on defendant	1	1	100%
prior use right facts must be presented in statement of defence / counterclaim; subsequent briefs limited to responding to reply	1	1	100%
maximum daily penalty is appropriate where non-compliance with information obligations is evident, persistent, and the result of deliberate choice	1	1	100%
setting of penalties is in the court's interest and not capped by claimant's request	1	1	100%

Most-rejected arguments

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

Argument	Party	Cases
counterclaim for revocation of ep 3 511 174	Respondent	1
private prior use right under german law (art. 28 upca)	Respondent	1
penalties imposed were disproportionate given pending legal questions on upc enforcement	Respondent	1

Most-cited prior art

References relied on across substantive merits cases, with the role they typically play.

Reference	Predominant role	Cases
WO [379] (prior art document cited in preparatory order in context of novelty/inventive step)	Obviousness combination	1
EP 452 (prior art document cited in preparatory order for novelty and inventive step analysis)	Novelty-destroying	1
EP 968 (cited in preparatory order for inventive step combination)	Obviousness combination	1