UPC Analytics
DEEN

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
PI-Erteilungsquote (konservativ)
Verletzungsquote
Nichtigerklärungsquote
Vergleichs-/Rücknahmequote
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
90% 18 / 20
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.
  • Prozessuale & Unteranträge61
Nach Kammer
PI-Erteilungsquote · Verletzungsquote · Nichtigerklärungsquote pro Kammer (im Umfang).
  • Court of Appeal61 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: Verletzungsquote: Nichtigerklärungsquote:
Aktuelle Entscheidungen
Neueste Entscheidungen im Umfang.
  • 2025-12-19UPC_APP_35643/2025AbgewiesenThe Court of Appeal dismissed Docket Navigator's application for access to written pleadings and evidence in the Sumi Agro v. Syngenta proceedings (UPC_CoA_523/2024) under R. 262.1(b) RoP. The Court held that granting access to a commercial patent intelligence platform intending to republish documents to its subscribers is not an interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA. Copyright is not a general interest to be considered under Art. 45 UPCA. The requirement of representation and the proper conduct of proceedings would be compromised by granting access for commercial redistribution purposes.
  • 2025-08-21UPC_APP_34793/2025Nur prozessualThe Court of Appeal disregarded applications filed by Seoul Viosys after the oral hearing had closed, ruling that parties must refrain from further communications with the court after an oral hearing and there is no need to summarise oral argument in writing.
  • 2025-08-21UPC_APP_35194/2025Nur prozessualCourt of Appeal order denying Yealink's request for simultaneous interpretation at the oral hearing in provisional measures proceedings. The Court held that a party must justify the need for court-ordered simultaneous interpretation; the fact that the defendant is based in a non-English speaking country or that company officials will have difficulties following proceedings does not generally justify such an order. The same applies to interpretation at the parties' own cost. A party may instead engage a private interpreter at its own expense with two weeks' notice to the Registry (R. 109.4 RoP).
  • 2025-08-15UPC_APP_34722/2025Nur prozessualThe Court of Appeal denied Sun Patent Trust's application for suspensive effect of a confidentiality order, holding that an application for suspensive effect cannot be made before lodging a Statement of Appeal; the standing judge dismissed the application as inadmissible.
  • 2025-08-15UPC_APP_34719/2025Nur prozessualThe UPC Court of Appeal dismissed Sun Patent Trust's application for suspensive effect of two appeals concerning confidentiality orders in infringement proceedings against Vivo entities (EP3407524 and EP3852468), because a statement of appeal had not yet been lodged as required by R.223.1 and R.224.1 RoP.
  • 2025-08-15UPC_APP_34336/2025VergleichThe Court of Appeal granted the release and transfer of a security deposit of EUR 25,000 (provided by Ballinno for Kinexon's legal costs in the appeal proceedings) following a settlement agreement between the parties. The appeal had been adjudicated on 26 June 2025 and thereafter the parties entered into a settlement. The security was ordered to be transferred to Kinexon Sports GmbH.
  • 2025-08-01UPC_APP_25317/2025Nur prozessualCourt of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on Strabag's and Chainzone's applications for confidentiality orders under R. 262A RoP in their appeal of the Swarco v. Strabag infringement decision from Vienna Local Division. The Court partly granted and partly rejected the applications, confirming that product characteristics not readily accessible to third parties constitute trade secrets, but rejected applications for information already submitted at first instance without a timely R. 262A request.
  • 2025-07-23UPC_APP_32598/2025VergleichCourt of Appeal (Panel 2) permitted Visibly Inc.'s withdrawal of its appeal against a Hamburg Local Division security-for-costs order in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 918 974, following an out-of-court settlement between the parties. Easee companies had become insolvent and their CFI proceedings had been stayed. The Court of Appeal declared the appeal proceedings closed, confirmed no cost decision was needed (both parties waived costs), and ordered 60% reimbursement of appeal fees to Visibly (written proceedings not yet concluded).