Outcome base rates

No merits decisions in the current scope.

• Other169

• Munich LD57 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Paris CD27 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Mannheim LD25 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Dusseldorf LD22 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Hamburg LD10 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Paris LD7 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Nordic-Baltic RD5 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Milan LD5 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• The Hague LD4 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Milan CD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Munich CD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Court of Appeal1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —

• 2025-08-25UPC_APP_22894/2024Munich LDProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division ruled that Qualcomm's preliminary objection challenging the validity of the withdrawal of an opt-out for EP 1 875 683 was inadmissible under Rule 19.1 RoP, and confirmed that the withdrawal of the opt-out was effective.
• 2025-08-25UPC_APP_22897/2024Munich LDDismissedPreliminary objection by Qualcomm entities (Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH) challenging jurisdiction dismissed by judge-rapporteur. Defendants argued that the withdrawal of the opt-out of EP 1 552 399 by a UPC representative (Ms Huang) was invalid for lack of power of attorney. The court held that a registered UPC representative (Art. 48 UPCA, R. 5.3(b)(i) RoP) does not need a written mandate for opt-out withdrawal; formal requirements were met and the patent falls within UPC jurisdiction. Appeal against this decision was not allowed.
• 2025-06-20UPC_APP_28294/2024Munich LDDismissedThe Munich Local Division rejected Motorola's preliminary objection to jurisdiction, holding that the court had jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA based on alleged infringing acts in Germany, and allowed proceedings to continue.
• 2025-06-20UPC_APP_61580/2024Munich LDDismissedPreliminary objection by Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH and Flextronics International Europe B.V. challenging jurisdiction of Munich Local Division was rejected in Headwater Research LLC v. Motorola entities (EP 3 110 069). The court held: (1) Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA jurisdiction is established by the claimant's credible assertion of infringement in Germany, including delivery of devices; (2) Art. 33(1)(b) sentence 2 UPCA does not narrow the rule for multiple defendants where each infringes in Germany or has seat there; (3) Flextronics as logistics provider for Motorola was plausibly alleged to have participated in infringement, supporting Munich jurisdiction. Appeal not allowed.
• 2025-06-20UPC_APP_30222/2024Munich LDProcedural onlyMunich Local Division dismissed preliminary objections to jurisdiction filed by Motorola Mobility LLC and related entities against Headwater Research LLC's infringement action (UPC_CFI_149/2024). The court upheld jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA for defendants that committed infringing acts in Germany and are domiciled there, and also upheld jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA (with a narrower interpretation) over the remaining defendants including Digital River Ireland Ltd. Leave to appeal was not granted.
• 2025-05-27UPC_APP_16032/2025Hamburg LDProcedural onlyThe Hamburg Local Division rejected the preliminary objection (Einspruch) filed by Epson entities in Dolby International AB's infringement action, finding no substantial doubts about the validity of Dolby's withdrawal of opt-out, and ordering the proceedings to continue with the statement of defence as the next step.
• 2025-05-23UPC_APP_19773/2025The Hague LDProcedural onlyProcedural order of The Hague Local Division in infringement proceedings by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against multiple Moderna entities concerning lipid nanoparticle delivery technology. The order addresses preliminary objections and jurisdictional matters concerning certain Moderna entities (Moderna Spain, Moderna Poland, Moderna Norway), examining whether their activities constitute or enable infringement within the UPC territory.
• 2025-04-17UPC_APP_11261/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyThe Local Division Munich ruled on preliminary objections filed by BioNTech and Pfizer entities challenging UPC jurisdiction over Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine variants sold before 1 June 2023, addressing the UPC's temporal jurisdiction in relation to the opt-out regime and the date of UPC operation.