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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
40%patentees prevail on the merits
5 merits decisions; 2 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
2 won · 3 lost · Insufficient prior-period data
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2024: 50% (1/2)
- 2025: 50% (1/2)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Paris CD40%(n=5)
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
—
Revocation rate
50%
2 revoked / partially · 2 maintained / amended
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
17% 1 / 6
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Revocation16
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Paris CD12 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: 50%
- Milan CD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Munich LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Vienna LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Mannheim LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2026-01-26UPC_CFI_999/2025Paris CDProcedural onlyOrder from the Paris Central Division (Panel 3) dated 26 January 2026 reviewing (under R. 333 RoP) the judge-rapporteur's earlier order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) in a revocation action brought by ALD France S.A.S. against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding EP 3 083 107 B1. The panel upheld the judge-rapporteur's ruling that ALD France S.A.S. has a sufficient independent interest to bring the revocation action notwithstanding that ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (an affiliated entity) had already filed a counterclaim for revocation in parallel infringement proceedings. The panel held: (1) ALD France and ALD Vacuum are not 'the same party' under Art. 33(4) UPCA merely because they are parent/subsidiary; (2) independent business activity is the relevant criterion; (3) competition law principles on economic units do not transfer.
- 2025-12-09UPC_CFI_999/2025Paris CDProcedural onlyParis Central Division rejected Nanoval's preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) seeking dismissal of ALD France's revocation action. The Court held that ALD France S.A.S. and the ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (party in the Munich Local Division proceedings) are not the same party, so the revocation action before the Central Division is not inadmissible on grounds of party identity.
- 2025-02-28UPC_CFI_312/2023Paris CDPatent amendedDecision on the revocation action by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International Inc. concerning EP 3 504 989 (vaping/e-cigarette device). The court maintained the patent in amended form (Auxiliary Request 1, filed 22 July 2024) with effect for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. The patent as granted was found invalid. Each party bears its own costs since both parties partially succeeded.
- 2025-01-22UPC_CFI_310/2023Paris CDPartially revokedThe Paris Central Division partially revoked EP 3 613 453 B1, finding that claim 1 lacked inventive step; the patent was maintained in amended form based on the independent validity of claims 6, 7 and 8 in combination with claim 1 as granted. Each party bore its own costs.
- 2025-01-17UPC_CFI_316/2023Paris CDRevokedThe Paris Central Division (Seat, Panel 1) revoked European patent EP 3 430 921 B1 in its entirety, with effect for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. The claimant NJOY Netherlands B.V. succeeded in demonstrating that granted claim 1 lacked clarity/added matter, and the defendant Juul Labs International Inc.'s twelve auxiliary requests were all found unallowable. A thirteenth conditional auxiliary request (2d) was rejected as unreasonably numerous and unclear. Juul Labs was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
- 2024-11-29UPC_CFI_307/2024Paris CDPatent maintainedThe Paris Central Division dismissed NJOY Netherlands B.V.'s revocation action against EP 2 875 740 B1 (a patent owned by VMR Products LLC relating to electronic vapour products/e-cigarettes with a magnetic cartomizer retention mechanism). The Court found the patent novel and inventive over the asserted prior art combinations (Cross + DiFonzo, Pan + DiFonzo, and common general knowledge). The patent is maintained as granted. NJOY as the unsuccessful party bears the costs up to a ceiling of EUR 500,001.
- 2024-11-27UPC_CFI_308/2023Paris CDRevokedThe Central Division Paris revoked European patent EP 3 456 214 (relating to a vaporizer/e-cigarette device) in its entirety. The patent was found to lack inventive step over the prior art. All auxiliary requests for partial maintenance were rejected as either unsubstantiated or unreasonable in number. The defendant (patent proprietor VMR Products LLC) was ordered to bear the litigation costs.
- 2024-08-09UPC_CFI_122/2024Paris CDWithdrawnThe Paris Central Division issued a decision following Aiko Energy Germany's withdrawal of its revocation action against Maxeon Solar's EP 3 065 184 before service on the defendant, also ruling on the reimbursement of court fees under R.370(9)(b)(i) RoP.