UPC Analytics
DEEN
Analysen43Fälle38Entscheidungen31Richter118Parteien9Kanzleien
EingangstrendsAusgängeVerfahrensdauerTechnologieForumstrategieLeitentscheidungenRechtsfragenSicherheitsleistung

Ausgangs-Basisraten

Was ist normal — PI-Quote, Verletzungsquote, Nichtigerklärungsquote, Vergleichsquote. Ehrliche Nenner über Antragstyp.

KategorieinfringementAlle zurücksetzen
Erfolgsquote des Patentinhabers
Anteil der Sachentscheidungen, in denen der Patentinhaber obsiegt — Verletzungsklagen mit festgestellter Verletzung, Nichtigkeitsklagen mit bestätigtem Patent. Vergleiche, Klagerücknahmen und rein prozessuale Ausgänge sind aus dem Nenner ausgeschlossen.
63%der Patentinhaber obsiegen in der Sache

8 Sachentscheidungen; 13 nicht eindeutige Fälle ausgeschlossen (geringe Fallzahl)

5 won · 3 lost · ↓ 40.0 Pp ggü. Vorjahreszeitraum

Erfolgsquote nach Jahr
Erfolgsquote des Patentinhabers nach Jahr der Erstentscheidung.
  • 2024: 100% (2/2)
  • 2025: 50% (2/4)
  • 2026: 100% (1/1)
Erfolgsquote nach Kammer
Top-Kammern nach Anzahl der Sachentscheidungen.
  • Mannheim LD
    63%
    (n=8)
Wenn Patentinhaber verlieren — warum?
Von 3 Niederlagen…
100%
Patent für nichtig erklärt — 0 (0%)Keine Verletzung festgestellt — 3 (100%)
PI-Erteilungsquote
—
PI-Erteilungsquote (konservativ)
—
Verletzungsquote
71%
5 infringed · 2 not infringed
Nichtigerklärungsquote
—
0 revoked / partially · 0 maintained / amended
Vergleichs-/Rücknahmequote
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
38% 5 / 13
Ausgänge nach Kategorie (detailliert)
Gestapelte Aufschlüsselung mit schärferem Ausgangs-Enum — Nichtigkeitsfälle teilen sich auf in revoked_full / revoked_partial / maintained_as_*, usw.
Vergleichszeitpunkt
Wann verglichene oder zurückgenommene Fälle tatsächlich endeten — relativ zu prozessualen Meilensteinen.
Nach Technologiesektor
Top-Sektoren nach Fallzahl (mit Filterbereich).
Nach Fallkategorie
Wie sich Ausgangsraten über die sechs L2-Buckets unterscheiden.
  • Verletzung43
Nach Kammer
PI-Erteilungsquote · Verletzungsquote · Nichtigerklärungsquote pro Kammer (im Umfang).
  • Mannheim LD43 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: 71%Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
Aktuelle Entscheidungen
Neueste Entscheidungen im Umfang.
  • 2026-02-27UPC_CFI_344/2025Nur prozessualThe Mannheim Local Division (judge-rapporteur Johansson) ordered Defendant 1 (SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.) to pay a separate court fee for its counterclaim for revocation within 14 days, ruling that the fee already paid by Defendants 2-4 for their earlier counterclaim does not cover Defendant 1's subsequently filed separate counterclaim, even if the content is the same. Failure to pay may result in a default decision under R. 355 RoP.
  • 2026-02-12UPC_CFI_575/2025AbgewiesenThe Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection filed by all seven defendants (led by Sovex Systems and Solvest entities) in Honeywell's infringement action concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The Court retained jurisdiction over the Dutch defendants under Art. 33(1) UPCA and rejected the defendants' arguments challenging international jurisdiction over Hemtech (Bosnia and Herzegovina) under Art. 31 UPCA and Art. 71b Brussels I Recast. The Court found Honeywell had sufficiently asserted German-directed infringing acts at the pleadings stage, without needing to pre-judge the merits. Leave to appeal the rejection was not granted by the judge-rapporteur.
  • 2026-01-30UPC_CFI_365/2023outcomeName.otherThe Mannheim Local Division confirmed the earlier imposition of penalties order of 20 January 2026 against Kodak GmbH and related entities for non-compliance with a final judgment requiring provision of financial and technical information to FUJIFILM Corporation (EP 3 511 174). The Court rejected Kodak's challenge and upheld the maximum daily penalty as justified given the extent and seriousness of the non-compliance. Leave to appeal was granted to develop UPC case law on enforcement measures.
  • 2026-01-13UPC_CFI_850/2024Nur prozessualThe Mannheim Local Division issued a further procedural order in ZTE v. Samsung addressing Samsung's request to produce a licence agreement, granting confidentiality protection under R. 262A RoP and permitting Samsung to file a further pleading on FRAND topics under R. 36 RoP.
  • 2025-12-23UPC_CFI_538/2025ZurückgenommenSun Patent Trust withdrew its infringement action concerning EP 2 903 267 against all defendants (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and associated entities) before closure of the written procedure. Defendants 1-4 and 6-8 consented; Defendant 5 (ASD SAS) was unrepresented. No cost compensation was sought. Sun Patent Trust was ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP.
  • 2025-12-23UPC_CFI_499/2025ZurückgenommenNEC Corporation withdrew its infringement action against all defendants (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and associated entities) before closure of the written procedure. All represented defendants consented. Defendant 5 (ASD SAS) was unrepresented but showed no interest in proceedings. No cost compensation was sought. NEC was ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP.
  • 2025-12-23UPC_CFI_501/2025ZurückgenommenNEC Corporation withdrew its infringement action concerning EP 3 057 321 against all defendants (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and associated entities) before closure of the written procedure. All represented defendants consented. Defendant 5 (ASD SAS) was unrepresented. No cost compensation was sought. NEC was ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP.
  • 2025-12-23UPC_CFI_850/2024Nur prozessualThe Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order in ZTE v. Samsung proceedings addressing Samsung's request to produce a licence agreement and requests for further written pleadings under R. 36/263 RoP on FRAND defence, as well as scheduling of an interim conference.