UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions3Judges2Parties3Firms
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 principlescope of upc revocation can be limited to national parts of upca member statesClear 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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
0%patentees prevail on the merits

1 merits decision (small sample)

0 won · 1 lost · Insufficient prior-period data

Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
  • 2025: 0% (0/1)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
  • Paris CD
    0%
    (n=1)
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
—
Revocation rate
100%
1 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Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.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).
  • Paris CD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: 100%
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
  • 2025-05-28ACT_23310/2024Partially revokedParis Central Division (28 May 2025) revoked the German national part of EP 3 822 805 B1 on grounds of added matter (Art. 100(c) EPC), as the patent's claim 1 extended beyond the content of the parent application. All auxiliary requests (AR1–AR16) were either refused admission or failed to overcome the invalidity. Costs were awarded against the patent proprietor (DISH Technologies).