UPC Analytics
DEEN
Analysen97Fälle40Entscheidungen40Richter54Parteien30Kanzleien
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.
33%der Patentinhaber obsiegen in der Sache

6 Sachentscheidungen; 3 nicht eindeutige Fälle ausgeschlossen (geringe Fallzahl)

2 won · 4 lost · ↓ 66.7 Pp ggü. Vorjahreszeitraum

Erfolgsquote nach Jahr
Erfolgsquote des Patentinhabers nach Jahr der Erstentscheidung.
  • 2024: 50% (1/2)
  • 2025: 50% (1/2)
  • 2026: 0% (0/1)
Erfolgsquote nach Kammer
Top-Kammern nach Anzahl der Sachentscheidungen.
  • Paris CD
    40%
    (n=5)
  • Vienna LD
    0%
    (n=1)
Wenn Patentinhaber verlieren — warum?
Von 4 Niederlagen…
75%
25%
Patent für nichtig erklärt — 3 (75%)Keine Verletzung festgestellt — 1 (25%)
PI-Erteilungsquote
100%
1 granted · 0 denied · 1 total decisions
PI-Erteilungsquote (konservativ)
100%
Granted / total PI decisions (incl. interim, withdrawn)
Verletzungsquote
0%
0 infringed · 1 not infringed
Nichtigerklärungsquote
50%
2 revoked / partially · 2 maintained / amended
Vergleichs-/Rücknahmequote
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
11% 2 / 19
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.
  • Berufungen43
  • Nichtigkeit16
  • Sonstige8
  • Verletzung5
  • Einstweilige Maßnahmen1
Nach Kammer
PI-Erteilungsquote · Verletzungsquote · Nichtigerklärungsquote pro Kammer (im Umfang).
  • Court of Appeal43 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
  • Paris CD19 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: 50%
  • Mannheim LD3 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
  • Munich LD2 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
  • Vienna LD2 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: 0%Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
  • Dusseldorf LD2 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: 100%Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
  • Milan CD1 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
  • Hamburg LD1 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
Aktuelle Entscheidungen
Neueste Entscheidungen im Umfang.
  • 2026-02-19UPC_CFI_26/2025Nicht verletztThe Vienna Local Division dismissed both Messerle GmbH's infringement action and Sabert Corporation Europe's counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 705 415 B1 (a packaging-related patent). The infringement action was dismissed because the accused 'Tray2Go' product did not directly or equivalently infringe the patent claims — the Court found no technical-functional equivalence of the substitute means used in the accused product. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed, so the patent was maintained as granted. Each party bears its own costs (maximum EUR 600,000 total, split evenly between action and counterclaim).
  • 2026-02-17UPC_CoA_302/2025VerletztCourt of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, which had revoked the patent. The Court of Appeal upheld the patent's validity (rejecting the counterclaim for revocation), found patent infringement, and issued orders including a permanent injunction, recall, and destruction of infringing products. Provisional lump-sum damages of EUR 20,000 were awarded, with full damages to be determined in subsequent proceedings. (German-language version)
  • 2026-02-17UPC_CoA_302/2025VerletztCourt of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, which had revoked the patent. The Court of Appeal upheld the patent's validity (rejecting the counterclaim for revocation), found patent infringement, and issued orders including a permanent injunction, recall, and destruction of infringing products. Provisional lump-sum damages of EUR 20,000 were awarded, with full damages to be determined in subsequent proceedings. (English-language version)
  • 2026-01-26UPC_CFI_999/2025Nur prozessualOrder from the Paris Central Division (Panel 3) dated 26 January 2026 reviewing (under R. 333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's earlier order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) in a revocation action brought by ALD France S.A.S. against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding EP 3 083 107 B1. The panel upheld the judge-rapporteur's ruling that ALD France S.A.S. has a sufficient independent interest to bring the revocation action notwithstanding that ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (an affiliated entity) had already filed a counterclaim for revocation in parallel infringement proceedings. The panel held: (1) ALD France and ALD Vacuum are not 'the same party' under Art. 33(4) UPCA merely because they are parent/subsidiary; (2) independent business activity is the relevant criterion; (3) competition law principles on economic units do not transfer.
  • 2025-12-09UPC_CFI_999/2025Nur prozessualParis Central Division rejected Nanoval's preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) seeking dismissal of ALD France's revocation action. The Court held that ALD France S.A.S. and the ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (party in the Munich Local Division proceedings) are not the same party, so the revocation action before the Central Division is not inadmissible on grounds of party identity.
  • 2025-12-04UPC_CFI_307/2025Nur prozessualThe Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the Aesculap v. Shanghai Bojin medical instrument case, scheduling the oral hearing and addressing requests for claim extension (R. 263), addition of a party (R. 305), and reinstatement in prior status (R. 320).
  • 2025-11-25UPC_CoA_464/2024Patent aufrechterhaltenThe Court of Appeal dismissed the Meril companies' appeals against the revocation and counterclaim revocation decisions and Edwards' appeal against the infringement decision, upholding the patent EP 3 646 825 (heart valve). Key rulings: (I–VIII) All revocation and counterclaim appeals rejected; Meril bears 60% of Edwards' costs in the revocation proceedings and Edwards bears 40% of Meril's costs. (IX–X) The infringement decision was partially set aside: the injunction and preliminary damages order do not extend to XL devices (30.5mm and 32mm) that had not been scheduled for implantation in a patient by 15 November 2024. Preliminary damages reduced to not exceed €363,000 for Meril India and Meril Germany. The value of the proceedings is €8,000,000.
  • 2025-11-07UPC_CoA_900/2025AbgewiesenCourt of Appeal (judge-rapporteur) rejected Lepu Medical's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favour of Occlutech. The CoA held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that the appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect. Lepu's claim that enforcing the injunction would damage its reputation was insufficient to outweigh Occlutech's interest in preventing imminent patent infringement.