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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
60%patentees prevail on the merits
5 merits decisions; 24 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
3 won · 2 lost · Flat vs. prior 12 months
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2025: 100% (2/2)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Hamburg LD100%(n=1)
- Dusseldorf LD100%(n=1)
- Vienna LD100%(n=1)
- Munich LD0%(n=1)
- Brussels LD0%(n=1)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 2 losses…
50%
50%
Patent invalidated — 1 (50%)No infringement found — 1 (50%)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
100%
2 infringed · 0 not infringed
Revocation rate
—
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
55% 6 / 11
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Infringement58
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Munich LD29 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Dusseldorf LD14 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Mannheim LD5 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Hamburg LD3 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 100%Revocation rate: —
- Paris LD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Brussels LD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Lisbon LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Milan LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Vienna LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 100%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.
- 2026-02-24UPC_CFI_735/2024Mannheim LDoutcomeName.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.
- 2026-01-08UPC_CFI_377/2025Milan LDProcedural onlyThe Milan Local Division partially granted Primetals Technologies' application for an order to produce evidence under Art. 59 UPCA / R. 190 RoP, requiring Danieli to disclose documents relating to alleged infringement of EP 2 624 977 in steel coiling installations supplied to Hoa Phat Group in Vietnam.
- 2025-12-23UPC_CFI_538/2025Mannheim LDWithdrawnSun Patent Trust withdrew its infringement action concerning EP 2 903 267 against all defendants (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and associated entities) before closure of the written procedure. Defendants 1-4 and 6-8 consented; Defendant 5 (ASD SAS) was unrepresented. No cost compensation was sought. Sun Patent Trust was ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP.
- 2025-11-05UPC_CFI_461/2024Hamburg LDProcedural onlyHamburg Local Division correction order (R. 353 RoP) correcting several errors in the judgment of 5 November 2025 in Dolle v. Fakro concerning EP 2 476 814 B1. Corrections included party representative name, address, patent claim reference number errors, and addition of the defendants' counterclaims relating to conditional auxiliary requests.
- 2025-11-05UPC_CFI_461/2024Hamburg LDInfringedHamburg Local Division found that Fakro entities infringed Dolle A/S's European Patent EP 2 476 814 B1 (roof window with priority claim). The Court granted an injunction, recall of infringing products, removal from distribution channels, provision of information and damages assessment deferred. Fakro's counterclaim for revocation was rejected. The Court confirmed that 'the same invention' in Art. 87 EPC is interpreted by the direct-and-unambiguous disclosure standard.
- 2025-10-30UPC_CFI_361/2025Paris LDDismissedThe Paris Local Division (full panel: Lignieres, Kupecz, Gillet) rejected Vivo's preliminary objection challenging UPC jurisdiction and the internal competence of the Paris Local Division in Sun Patent Trust's SEP/FRAND infringement action concerning EP 3 852 468. The Court held that UPC jurisdiction is established under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA because an allegedly infringing Vivo product was offered and delivered to a French customer via Fnac.com, constituting a harmful event in France. Vivo's additional argument that only a FRAND defence (not a FRAND main claim) falls within UPC jurisdiction was deferred to the main proceedings under R. 20.2 RoP.
- 2025-10-30UPC_CFI_362/2025Paris LDProcedural onlyPreliminary objection (R.19 RoP) decided by the Paris Local Division. The court rejected the jurisdictional challenge raised by Vivo (that the UPC lacks jurisdiction over an active FRAND determination request as the main claim), holding that the UPC has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action including FRAND aspects, and that the Paris Local Division is internally competent under Art.33.1(a) UPCA on the basis of alleged infringing sales in France. The preliminary objection was deferred/rejected and the case proceeds on the merits.