UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions4Judges4Parties0Firms
Filing trendsOutcomesPendencyTechnologyForum strategyLeading casesLegal issuesSecurity for costs

Outcome base rates

What's normal — PI grant rate, infringement rate, revocation rate, settlement rate. Honest denominators using motion type.

CategoryrevocationLegal principlecosts allocation for director-defendants sued in their capacity as directorsClear all
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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
100%patentees prevail on the merits

1 merits decision (small sample)

1 won · 0 lost · Insufficient prior-period data

Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
  • 2025: 100% (1/1)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
  • Mannheim LD
    100%
    (n=1)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
—
Revocation rate
—
0 revoked / partially · 0 maintained / amended
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
0% 0 / 1
Outcomes by category (detailed)
Stacked breakdown using sharper outcome enums — revocation cases split into revoked_full / revoked_partial / maintained_as_*, etc.
By technology sector
Top sectors by case count (filter scope applied).
By case category
How outcome rates differ across the six L2 buckets.
  • Revocation1
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
  • Mannheim LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
  • 2025-09-12CC_65106/2024InfringedDecision of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement of EP 2 223 589 by Windhager GmbH (defendant 1) in Germany, Austria and Luxembourg, ordering an injunction, recall, removal from distribution channels, destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and a declaration of damages liability. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed. Defendants bear costs. The decision establishes that supplying or offering all components of a patented product designed to be assembled without additional items at the point of use constitutes direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA, and that selling even a single component of such a product when assembly is indicated also constitutes direct infringement.