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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
56%patentees prevail on the merits
34 merits decisions; 36 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
19 won · 15 lost · ↓ 28.6pp vs. prior 12 months
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2023: 0% (0/1)
- 2024: 66.7% (8/12)
- 2025: 61.1% (11/18)
- 2026: 0% (0/2)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Milan CD100%(n=3)
- Mannheim LD100%(n=1)
- Dusseldorf LD100%(n=1)
- Paris CD62%(n=21)
- Munich CD17%(n=6)
- Munich LD0%(n=2)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 15 losses…
100%
Patent invalidated — 15 (100%)No infringement found — 0 (0%)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
—
Revocation rate
43%
13 revoked / partially · 17 maintained / amended
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
22% 10 / 45
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Revocation378
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Munich LD105 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: 100%
- Paris CD75 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: 30%
- Dusseldorf LD50 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Mannheim LD43 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Milan CD20 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: 0%
- Munich CD19 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: 83%
- Paris LD16 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Hamburg LD14 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- The Hague LD11 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Milan LD11 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Nordic-Baltic RD5 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Brussels LD3 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2026-03-26UPC_CFI_104/2025Paris CDSettledDecision of the Paris Central Division dated 26 March 2026 declaring the revocation action (UPC_CFI_104/2025) and the counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) closed following an out-of-court settlement between IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH and Belparts Group N.V. IMI had commenced revocation proceedings in February 2025; Belparts had filed a counterclaim for infringement in April 2025. After the EPO Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 27 November 2025 and upheld the patent in amended form, the parties agreed to settle on 4 February 2026, requesting a stay. On 13 March 2026, Belparts withdrew the counterclaim for infringement and IMI withdrew the revocation action. No cost decision was requested.
- 2026-03-13UPC_CFI_927/2025Milan CDProcedural onlyThe Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Alt) ordered La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd. to provide security for legal costs of EUR 112,000 in favour of the defendants (Athena Pharmaceutiques and Substipharm) in the revocation action concerning EP 3 592 333. The Court found that La Siddhi's financial situation (thin equity margin of approximately GBP 27,000) gave rise to a legitimate concern that any costs order would not be recoverable. La Siddhi's claim to SME status was found unsubstantiated. Security may be provided by bank deposit or EU-licensed bank guarantee within six weeks.
- 2026-03-13UPC_CFI_722/2025Milan CDoutcomeName.otherThe Milan Central Division ordered disposal of Neurocrine Biosciences' revocation action (R. 360 RoP) against EP 3 784 233 because the patent had been definitively and entirely revoked by the EPO Opposition Division, rendering the revocation action devoid of purpose. Neurocrine's conditional request (disposal only if Spruce undertook not to enforce divisional patents) was held outside R. 360 RoP. Spruce (claimant/respondent) was ordered to pay 80% of maximum recoverable costs (EUR 488,000) to Neurocrine; Neurocrine was reimbursed 60% of court fees (EUR 12,000).
- 2026-02-24UPC_CFI_337/2025Munich CDPatent maintainedThe Central Division (Munich) dismissed TCL Europe's revocation action against Corning's EP 3 296 274 (glass composition), finding all invalidity attacks unsuccessful. The patent was maintained as granted; TCL was ordered to bear Corning's legal costs.
- 2026-02-24UPC_CFI_829/2024Munich CDRevokedThe Central Division (Munich) revoked EP 2 611 800 (sugar compositions) in its entirety for Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden, finding the claims lacked inventive step and the application to amend was dismissed. The defendant bears UPM's costs.
- 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.
- 2026-01-15UPC_CFI_480/2025Milan CDProcedural onlyThe Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Roselinger) rejected Fisher & Paykel's request to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A as subsequent amendments to the patent (EP 4 185 356) in the revocation proceedings. The Court held that under R. 50.2 and R. 30.2 RoP, subsequent amendments are only allowed on an exceptional basis; the preclusive nature of the front-loaded system means that amendments must be made in full at the earliest stage. The efficiency of proceedings is not a sufficient reason to allow subsequent piecemeal amendments.
- 2026-01-15UPC_CFI_480/2025Milan CDProcedural onlyDuplicate/version of the above order (same date and case) from the Milan Central Division rejecting Fisher & Paykel's request to introduce subsequent auxiliary requests 2A–13A for patent EP 4 185 356 in the revocation action brought by Fisher & Paykel against Flexicare. The reasoning and outcome are identical to the companion order.