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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
0%patentees prevail on the merits
3 merits decisions; 4 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
0 won · 3 lost · Insufficient prior-period data
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2025: 0% (0/2)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Dusseldorf LD0%(n=2)
- Munich LD0%(n=1)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 3 losses…
100%
Patent invalidated — 3 (100%)No infringement found — 0 (0%)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
—
0 infringed · 0 not infringed
Revocation rate
—
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
50% 2 / 4
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Infringement15
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Munich LD9 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Dusseldorf LD3 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Mannheim LD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Helsinki LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2025-11-03UPC_CFI_662/2025Mannheim LDDismissedThe Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection (R.19 RoP) filed by multiple Geely group defendants challenging the jurisdiction and competence of the Mannheim Local Division. The Court found it had jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA over all defendants as they are members of the same corporate group, share business relations as required, and face the same infringement allegation regarding the same patent claim. The Court also established that the requirement of a 'business relationship' under Art.33(1)(b) UPCA does not require complete identity of infringing acts but merely that the accused acts are aligned in purpose. The infringement action on the merits continues.
- 2025-09-26UPC_CFI_26/2024Dusseldorf LDWithdrawnThe Düsseldorf Local Division recorded the withdrawal by Headwater Research LLC of its infringement action (EP 3 110 069) against Samsung Electronics entities after the court had issued a decision on 30 July 2025 dismissing the infringement action and revoking the patent; both parties to bear own costs.
- 2025-08-01UPC_CFI_54/2024Munich LDRevokedMunich Local Division found that European Patent 2 391 947 (Headwater, relating to Android device network management) is invalid in all forms including as amended. The panel cancelled the second oral hearing planned for September 2025, indicating the patent was found invalid both as granted and in all amended forms proposed by Headwater. The infringement action was therefore dismissed.
- 2025-07-30ACT_3932/2024Dusseldorf LDRevokedThe Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Headwater Research LLC's infringement action against Samsung and revoked European patent EP 3 110 069 B1 to the extent of claim 1, on the basis of a successful counterclaim for revocation; all costs were borne by the claimant. The court also rejected a new argument on added matter as inadmissible under R. 9.2 RoP.
- 2025-06-15UPC_CFI_26/2024Dusseldorf LDProcedural onlyDüsseldorf Local Division dismissed Samsung's application for security for costs against Headwater Research LLC under R. 158 RoP. The Court found that while enforcing a cost order against a US-domiciled entity might be more burdensome, the evidence showed Headwater generates recurring revenues from licensing, making the concern about non-recovery insufficiently justified.
- 2025-03-03UPC_CFI_54/2024Munich LDProcedural onlyProcedural order issued by the Munich Local Division following the Interim Conference of 28 February 2025 in two consolidated infringement actions by Headwater Research LLC against Samsung. The order addressed procedural matters including inadmissibility of Samsung's invalidity attack under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC, the standing-to-sue issue, treatment of a witness statement, and admissibility of late-filed documents ZP8-ZP9. No substantive ruling on infringement or validity.
- 2024-10-02UPC_CFI_54/2024Munich LDProcedural onlyProcedural order on Samsung Electronics entities' application for security for costs (Rule 158 RoP) against Claimant Headwater Research LLC, a US-based patent assertion entity. Applying the CoA standard that the claimant's financial position must give rise to legitimate and real concern about recoverability of a potential cost order, the court assessed whether EUR 200,000 security was appropriate.
- 2024-09-11UPC_CFI_127/2024Munich LDProcedural onlyMunich Local Division ordered correction of party designations under R.305 RoP by analogy. The Court corrected the names and addresses of defendants 3 and 5 following identification that one defendant did not exist at its stated address and another was incorrectly named. The Registry was instructed to re-serve the statement of claim on the corrected defendant 5.