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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
48%patentees prevail on the merits
73 merits decisions; 170 inconclusive cases excluded
35 won · 38 lost · ↓ 42.4pp vs. prior 12 months
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2023: 50% (3/6)
- 2024: 83.3% (10/12)
- 2025: 37.5% (15/40)
- 2026: 40% (2/5)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Milan LD67%(n=3)
- Dusseldorf LD50%(n=18)
- Munich LD50%(n=14)
- The Hague LD50%(n=8)
- Vienna LD50%(n=2)
- Mannheim LD46%(n=13)
- Paris LD43%(n=7)
- Hamburg LD20%(n=5)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 38 losses…
47%
53%
Patent invalidated — 18 (47%)No infringement found — 20 (53%)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
64%
30 infringed · 17 not infringed
Revocation rate
100%
1 revoked / partially · 0 maintained / amended
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
36% 43 / 118
Outcomes by category (detailed)
Stacked breakdown using sharper outcome enums — revocation cases split into revoked_full / revoked_partial / maintained_as_*, etc.
Settlement timing
When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.
By technology sector
Top sectors by case count (filter scope applied).
By case category
How outcome rates differ across the six L2 buckets.
- Infringement584
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Munich LD187 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 67%Revocation rate: —
- Dusseldorf LD111 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 64%Revocation rate: 100%
- Mannheim LD90 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 67%Revocation rate: —
- The Hague LD49 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 60%Revocation rate: —
- Hamburg LD49 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 25%Revocation rate: —
- Paris LD32 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 60%Revocation rate: —
- Milan LD24 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 100%Revocation rate: —
- Nordic-Baltic RD11 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 100%Revocation rate: —
- Brussels LD8 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Paris CD6 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Lisbon LD5 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Copenhagen LD4 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- —UPC_CFI_254/2025Procedural onlyProcedural 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.
- 2026-03-26UPC_CFI_364/2025Paris CDSettledDecision of the Paris Central Division dated 26 March 2026 declaring the counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) closed following an out-of-court settlement between Belparts Group N.V. and IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH. This is the counterpart order to UPC_CFI_104/2025: the counterclaim for infringement by Belparts was withdrawn simultaneously with IMI's withdrawal of its revocation action following settlement. No cost decision was requested.
- 2026-03-24UPC_CFI_1049/2025Hamburg LDWithdrawnThe Hamburg Local Division ordered reimbursement of 60% of court fees to claimant BTL Medizintechnik GmbH following the previously granted withdrawal of its infringement action before closure of the written procedure, applying R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP (2025 version).
- 2026-03-23UPC_CFI_1963/2025Paris LDProcedural onlyParis Local Division (panel, on R.333 review) upheld the Judge-Rapporteur's order of 17 February 2026 rejecting Bosch's preliminary objections to the territorial competence of Paris Local Division. The panel confirmed that Art. 33.1(b) UPCA requires only a commercial link between all defendants (not a direct link between the anchor defendant and each co-defendant), and that 'same infringement' means infringement of the same patent by all defendants, not identical products.
- 2026-03-18UPC_CFI_1357/2025Brussels LDProcedural onlyBrussels Local Division ordered Establishment Labs SA to provide security for costs of EUR 600,000 within 21 days in both UPC_CFI_1357/2025 and UPC_CFI_629/2026 proceedings concerning EP 3 107 487 B1. The Court held that the claimant's non-EU incorporation (Costa Rica) and concerns about recoverability of a cost order justified the security requirement, rejecting other elements of the defendants' R. 158 application.
- 2026-03-03UPC_CFI_43/2025The Hague LDRevokedThe Hague Local Division revoked Advanced Brain Monitoring's EP 2 437 696 B2 (position therapy device for sleep disorders) as lacking inventive step over JP748 prior art. The counterclaim for revocation by Philips succeeded and the infringement action was dismissed.
- 2026-02-27UPC_CFI_344/2025Mannheim LDProcedural onlyThe 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.
- 2026-02-25UPC_CFI_619/2025The Hague LDProcedural onlyThe Hague Local Division addressed GSK's R.263 application to amend its claim and Moderna's R.9 application to dismiss late-filed submissions in a parallel mRNA vaccine infringement action.