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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
80%patentees prevail on the merits
5 merits decisions; 14 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
4 won · 1 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.
- Munich LD100%(n=2)
- Vienna LD100%(n=1)
- Dusseldorf LD50%(n=2)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 1 loss…
100%
Patent invalidated — 1 (100%)No infringement found — 0 (0%)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
100%
1 infringed · 0 not infringed
Revocation rate
—
0 revoked / partially · 0 maintained / amended
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
50% 5 / 10
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Infringement55
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Munich LD27 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Dusseldorf LD20 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Mannheim LD6 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Hamburg 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.
- 2026-02-11UPC_CFI_1648/2025Dusseldorf LDSettledThe Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the withdrawal of Avago Technologies' infringement action against Telefónica Germany concerning EP 1 954 091, noting the parties had reached an out-of-court agreement rendering a cost decision unnecessary.
- 2026-01-26UPC_CFI_1064/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyOrder of the President of the Court of First Instance granting Nordmeccanica's application under R.323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that when the balance of interests is equal, the defendant's position is decisive, and that Nordmeccanica (an Italian company) would be disadvantaged by proceedings in German. The language was changed to English.
- 2026-01-20UPC_CFI_1506/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyOrder of the President of the Court of First Instance granting Pinterest's application under R.323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that although Pinterest Germany is based in Germany, the working language of the entire Pinterest group is English, and the need for coordinated internal communication outweighed the claimant's interest in German proceedings.
- 2025-12-10UPC_CFI_316/2024Dusseldorf LDInfringedThe Düsseldorf Local Division found indirect infringement of EP 2 061 575 B1 by Altech Makina and granted an injunction with removal from channels of commerce, while dismissing the revocation counterclaim; the infringement action was otherwise dismissed in part, with claimant bearing 30% and defendant 70% of costs.
- 2025-12-04UPC_CFI_307/2025Dusseldorf LDProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the Aesculap v. Shanghai Bojin medical instrument case, scheduling the oral hearing and addressing requests for claim extension (R. 263), addition of a party (R. 305), and reinstatement in prior status (R. 320).
- 2025-11-19UPC_CFI_87/2025Dusseldorf LDProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on InterDigital's application for a further round of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP against Disney entities in a video streaming patent case concerning EP 2 449 782.
- 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.
- 2025-10-29UPC_CFI_743/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyOrder of the President of the Court of First Instance granting Skechers' application under R.323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that all Skechers subsidiaries except one are based outside Germany, that the group's internal working language is English, and that conditions of enforcement of any future judgment were of lesser relevance than the parties' coordination needs during proceedings.