Ausgangs-Basisraten
Was ist normal — PI-Quote, Verletzungsquote, Nichtigerklärungsquote, Vergleichsquote. Ehrliche Nenner über Antragstyp.
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.
Keine Sachentscheidungen im aktuellen Umfang.
PI-Erteilungsquote
75%
3 granted · 1 denied · 4 total decisions
PI-Erteilungsquote (konservativ)
75%
Granted / total PI decisions (incl. interim, withdrawn)
Verletzungsquote
—
Nichtigerklärungsquote
—
Vergleichs-/Rücknahmequote
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
0% 0 / 4
Nach Technologiesektor
Top-Sektoren nach Fallzahl (mit Filterbereich).
Nach Fallkategorie
Wie sich Ausgangsraten über die sechs L2-Buckets unterscheiden.
- Einstweilige Maßnahmen6
Nach Kammer
PI-Erteilungsquote · Verletzungsquote · Nichtigerklärungsquote pro Kammer (im Umfang).
- Lisbon LD3 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: 0%Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
- Dusseldorf LD2 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: 100%Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
- The Hague LD1 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
Aktuelle Entscheidungen
Neueste Entscheidungen im Umfang.
- 2026-02-02UPC_CFI_515/2025Dusseldorf LDNur prozessualThe Düsseldorf Local Division issued a further procedural order under R. 275.2 RoP in HP's logic circuitry patent provisional measures proceedings, addressing service-related steps following the December 2025 preliminary injunction order.
- 2026-02-02UPC_CFI_449/2025Dusseldorf LDNur prozessualThe Düsseldorf Local Division issued a further order of good service under R. 275.2 RoP for HP's printer patent PI proceedings against Zhuhai ouguan, after additional enquiries to China's central authority produced no further response, deeming service sufficient.
- 2025-12-19UPC_CFI_515/2025Dusseldorf LDPI erteiltThe Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against Andreas Rentmeister and Shenzhen Moan Technology for infringement of HP's logic circuitry patent EP 3 835 965, deciding on the merits after the defendants failed to lodge an objection following deemed service.
- 2025-11-28UPC_CFI_449/2025Dusseldorf LDPI erteiltThe Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology (Defendant 1) for infringement of HP's printer-related patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1 (ink cartridges), after service was deemed good and the defendant failed to file an objection; penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per day ordered.
- 2025-11-11UPC_CFI_515/2025Dusseldorf LDNur prozessualThe Düsseldorf Local Division deemed service of the HP preliminary injunction application on Shenzhen Moan Technology Co. (Defendant 2) to be good service under R. 275.2 RoP, after the Chinese central authority failed to process the Hague Convention request for several months.
- 2025-10-17UPC_CFI_515/2025Dusseldorf LDPI erteiltThe Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against Defendant 1 (Andreas Rentmeister e.K.) prohibiting the sale and distribution of ink cartridges allegedly infringing HP's patent EP 3 835 965 B1 on logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components, with penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per day.
- 2025-10-16UPC_CFI_449/2025Dusseldorf LDNur prozessualThe Düsseldorf Local Division deemed service of an application for provisional measures on a Chinese defendant (Zhuhai ouguan) to be good service under R. 275.2 RoP, after service via the Hague Convention failed due to the defendant being untraceable at the provided address.
- 2025-05-08ACT_3186/2025Lisbon LDPI abgelehntLisbon Local Division denied Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH's application for a preliminary injunction against Zentiva Portugal, LDA concerning EP 1 830 843 (nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis). The court found no imminent infringement: Zentiva's receipt of marketing authorisations and filing of a parallel exclusivity period (PEP) request did not demonstrate that market entry was imminent before patent expiry. The PEP request was filed in the usual course of business and the Defendant was aware of the risk of PEP expiry. Value of case set at EUR 1,000,000.