UPC Analytics
DEEN
Analysen129Fälle31Entscheidungen35Richter265Parteien34Kanzleien
EingangstrendsAusgängeVerfahrensdauerTechnologieForumstrategieLeitentscheidungenRechtsfragenSicherheitsleistung

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.
100%der Patentinhaber obsiegen in der Sache

2 Sachentscheidungen; 18 nicht eindeutige Fälle ausgeschlossen (geringe Fallzahl)

2 won · 0 lost · Vorperiode unzureichend

Erfolgsquote nach Kammer
Top-Kammern nach Anzahl der Sachentscheidungen.
  • Munich LD
    100%
    (n=2)
PI-Erteilungsquote
—
PI-Erteilungsquote (konservativ)
—
Verletzungsquote
—
0 infringed · 0 not infringed
Nichtigerklärungsquote
—
0 revoked / partially · 0 maintained / amended
Vergleichs-/Rücknahmequote
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
70% 7 / 10
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.
  • Verletzung72
  • Nichtigkeit34
  • Sonstige6
Nach Kammer
PI-Erteilungsquote · Verletzungsquote · Nichtigerklärungsquote pro Kammer (im Umfang).
  • Munich LD111 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
  • Brussels LD1 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
Aktuelle Entscheidungen
Neueste Entscheidungen im Umfang.
  • —UPC_CFI_254/2025Nur prozessualProcedural order granting confidentiality request (Rule 262A RoP) filed by Defendant MediaTek Germany GmbH in respect of information in its Statement of Defence (Non-Technical Part), including exclusion of the public from hearings and redaction of the decision for publication. Claimant Huawei confirmed the underlying non-disclosure agreement and did not oppose the request.
  • 2026-01-26UPC_CFI_1064/2025Nur prozessualOrder of the President of the Court of First Instance granting Nordmeccanica's application under R.323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that when the balance of interests is equal, the defendant's position is decisive, and that Nordmeccanica (an Italian company) would be disadvantaged by proceedings in German. The language was changed to English.
  • 2026-01-20UPC_CFI_1506/2025Nur prozessualOrder of the President of the Court of First Instance granting Pinterest's application under R.323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that although Pinterest Germany is based in Germany, the working language of the entire Pinterest group is English, and the need for coordinated internal communication outweighed the claimant's interest in German proceedings.
  • 2025-12-19UPC_CFI_681/2024Nicht verletztThe Munich Local Division dismissed both the infringement action (UPC_CFI_437/2024) brought by GXD-Bio Corporation and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_681/2024) brought by the Myriad defendants, concerning EP 3 346 403 (a patent on data processing/gene expression analysis for identifying endogenous reference genes). The Court found no infringement because the accused products (Myriad test kits) did not use the claimed three-step normalization method — the products used a single-step average normalization that differed from the patented calculation method. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed, so the patent was maintained. Each party bears its own costs, with costs capped at EUR 600,000 total.
  • 2025-10-28UPC_CFI_729/2025Nur prozessualThe Munich Local Division ordered Claimant 2 (ParTec AG) to provide security for costs of EUR 85,000 in favour of the defendants, finding insufficient evidence of ParTec's financial capacity; the application against Claimant 1 (BFexaQC AG) was rejected for lack of any financial information.
  • 2025-10-20UPC_CFI_559/2025VergleichThe Munich Local Division approved the withdrawal of the solar panel infringement action following a comprehensive settlement between the claimant (Shangrao Xinyuan) and defendants 1-4 (LONGi group), and agreement by defendant 5, with no costs order and partial reimbursement of court fees at 60%.
  • 2025-10-16UPC_CFI_564/2024ZurückgenommenThe Munich Local Division permitted the withdrawal of the defendants' counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 387 547 under R. 265.1 RoP, after the main infringement/revocation proceedings had already been decided on 22 August 2025 and within the appeal period, with no costs order by agreement of the parties.
  • 2025-08-26UPC_CFI_559/2025Nur prozessualProcedural order from Munich Local Division dated 26 August 2025 staying the proceedings in an infringement action brought by Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co. against LONGi Solar and related entities regarding EP 3 297 043 B1, following a joint request by the claimant and defendants 1–4 due to ongoing settlement negotiations. Proceedings against defendant 5 (Thomas Seifert) were also stayed under R. 295(m) RoP pending possible inclusion in the settlement.