Outcome base rates
What's normal — PI grant rate, infringement rate, revocation rate, settlement rate. Honest denominators using motion type.
Patentee win rate
Share of merits decisions where the patentee prevailed — infringement cases finding infringement, revocation cases upholding the patent. Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
No merits decisions in the current scope.
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
—
Revocation rate
—
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
67% 2 / 3
By technology sector
Top sectors by case count (filter scope applied).
By case category
How outcome rates differ across the six L2 buckets.
- Appeals5
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Court of Appeal5 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2024-05-13APL_8/2024Court of AppealPI deniedOrder by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_1/2024, 13 May 2024) dismissing VusionGroup SA's (formerly SES-imagotag) appeal against the first-instance refusal of a preliminary injunction based on unitary patent EP 3 883 277 (electronic shelf labels). The CoA found that Hanshow's products do not fall within claim 1 because the antenna is not positioned further towards the front face than the circuit board as required; VusionGroup was ordered to bear costs.
- 2024-04-03APL_588422/2023Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal rejected Juul Labs International Inc.'s appeal against first-instance orders allowing NJOY Netherlands B.V. to rectify the name of a party (Juul Labs Inc. to Juul Labs International Inc.) in five sets of revocation proceedings, and held that no costs order would be issued on appeal since the appeal was not a final decision concluding the action.
- 2024-04-03APL_588423/2023Court of AppealProcedural onlyOrder by the Court of Appeal (Panel 1a, 3 April 2024) in five consolidated appeals (UPC_CoA_433-438/2023) upholding first-instance orders allowing NJOY Netherlands B.V. to rectify the name of the defendant in five revocation actions from Juul Labs, Inc. to Juul Labs International, Inc. (the registered patent proprietor). The CoA also clarified that costs are not awarded at appellate stage when the CoA decision does not conclude the action (R. 242.1 RoP).
- 2024-04-03APL_588426/2023Court of AppealDismissedCourt of Appeal order rejecting Juul Labs International's appeal against the Court of First Instance order allowing rectification of the defendant's name in five revocation actions filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. (originally naming Juul Labs, Inc. instead of registered proprietor Juul Labs International, Inc.). The Court of Appeal held the rectification was permissible since the appellant was not unreasonably prejudiced. No costs order was made in this interlocutory appeal, to be deferred to the final merits decision. Appeal rejected.
- 2024-04-03APL_588420/2023Court of AppealDismissedCourt of Appeal dismissed Juul Labs International Inc.'s appeal against five first-instance orders allowing NJOY Netherlands B.V. to rectify the incorrectly stated defendant name in five revocation actions (EP 3 498 115, EP 3 504 990, EP 3 504 989, EP 3 504 991, EP 3 430 921). The court held that despite the naming error, it should have been clear to the appellant that the actions were directed against it as the registered proprietor. No cost order was made as the appeal did not conclude the revocation actions.