UPC Analytics
DEEN
Analysen200Fälle87Entscheidungen57Richter345Parteien23Kanzleien
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.
58%der Patentinhaber obsiegen in der Sache

12 Sachentscheidungen; 24 nicht eindeutige Fälle ausgeschlossen (geringe Fallzahl)

7 won · 5 lost · ↓ 57.1 Pp ggü. Vorjahreszeitraum

Erfolgsquote nach Jahr
Erfolgsquote des Patentinhabers nach Jahr der Erstentscheidung.
  • 2023: 100% (1/1)
  • 2024: 100% (2/2)
  • 2025: 42.9% (3/7)
  • 2026: 100% (1/1)
Erfolgsquote nach Kammer
Top-Kammern nach Anzahl der Sachentscheidungen.
  • Paris LD
    100%
    (n=2)
  • Mannheim LD
    50%
    (n=10)
Wenn Patentinhaber verlieren — warum?
Von 5 Niederlagen…
20%
80%
Patent für nichtig erklärt — 1 (20%)Keine Verletzung festgestellt — 4 (80%)
PI-Erteilungsquote
—
PI-Erteilungsquote (konservativ)
—
Verletzungsquote
70%
7 infringed · 3 not infringed
Nichtigerklärungsquote
—
0 revoked / partially · 0 maintained / amended
Vergleichs-/Rücknahmequote
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
38% 9 / 24
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.
  • Verletzung88
  • Nichtigkeit46
  • Sonstige26
  • Einstweilige Maßnahmen4
Nach Kammer
PI-Erteilungsquote · Verletzungsquote · Nichtigerklärungsquote pro Kammer (im Umfang).
  • Mannheim LD152 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: 63%Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
  • Paris LD12 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: 100%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.
  • 2026-02-24UPC_CFI_735/2024outcomeName.otherThe Mannheim Local Division issued a decision in TRUMPF Laser UK v. IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 2 951 625 (optical apparatus for laser light), addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation; the outcome on infringement/validity requires additional pages not captured in the excerpt.
  • 2026-02-18UPC_CFI_819/2024ZurückgenommenThe Mannheim Local Division permitted Corning's partial withdrawal of its infringement action (EP 3 296 274) against defendants Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH and Hisense Europe Holding GmbH (defendants 1 and 2) under R. 265 RoP. The infringement action continues against TCL and LG (defendants 3–6). Simultaneously, the counterclaim for revocation filed by defendants 1 and 2 was also withdrawn and declared closed. Corning bears the costs of the withdrawn infringement proceedings against defendants 1–2; defendants 1–2 receive a 40% reimbursement (EUR 8,000) of their counterclaim court fees.
  • 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.
  • 2026-02-04UPC_CFI_530/2025Nur prozessualParis Local Division rejected Adobe's application for a default decision against KEEEX under R.158.5 and R.355.1 RoP. The court held that KEEEX had complied with the order to provide a bank guarantee (required following an earlier procedural order of 19 December 2025) and that Adobe's formal objections to the guarantee were unsubstantiated. The lack of diligence required to justify a default decision was not established.
  • 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.
  • 2026-01-26UPC_CFI_2045/2025Nur prozessualOrder of the President of the Court of First Instance granting Amazon's application under R.323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language in which the patent was granted). The court found that none of the defendants is based in Germany, that they all require English for internal coordination, and that the circumstances of the case and fairness under Art.49(5) UPCA justified the change.
  • 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.