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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
43%patentees prevail on the merits
7 merits decisions; 3 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
3 won · 4 lost · ↓ 100.0pp vs. prior 12 months
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2023: 0% (0/1)
- 2025: 75% (3/4)
- 2026: 0% (0/1)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Dusseldorf LD67%(n=3)
- Vienna LD50%(n=2)
- Mannheim LD0%(n=1)
- Hamburg LD0%(n=1)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 4 losses…
100%
Patent invalidated — 0 (0%)No infringement found — 4 (100%)
PI grant rate
67%
2 granted · 1 denied · 3 total decisions
PI grant rate (conservative)
67%
Granted / total PI decisions (incl. interim, withdrawn)
Infringement rate
50%
2 infringed · 2 not infringed
Revocation rate
100%
1 revoked / partially · 0 maintained / amended
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
8% 1 / 12
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Infringement34
- Revocation16
- Other9
- Provisional measures8
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Munich LD33 casesPI grant rate: 100%Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Dusseldorf LD15 casesPI grant rate: 100%Infringement rate: 100%Revocation rate: 100%
- Mannheim LD7 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Hamburg LD6 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 0%Revocation rate: —
- Vienna LD6 casesPI grant rate: 0%Infringement rate: 50%Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- —UPC_CFI_755/2024PI grantedThe Munich Local Division granted Avago Technologies an anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunction preventing Realtek Semiconductor from pursuing an anti-enforcement injunction in US proceedings that would block Avago from enforcing EP 1 770 912 before UPC courts, holding the UPC has jurisdiction for such provisional measures under Art. 32(1)(a)(c) UPCA.
- 2026-02-19UPC_CFI_26/2025Vienna LDNot infringedThe Vienna Local Division dismissed both Messerle GmbH's infringement action and Sabert Corporation Europe's counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 705 415 B1 (a packaging-related patent). The infringement action was dismissed because the accused 'Tray2Go' product did not directly or equivalently infringe the patent claims — the Court found no technical-functional equivalence of the substitute means used in the accused product. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed, so the patent was maintained as granted. Each party bears its own costs (maximum EUR 600,000 total, split evenly between action and counterclaim).
- 2025-10-15UPC_CFI_115/2025Dusseldorf LDPartially revokedThe Düsseldorf Local Division found that the infringement action failed (patent not infringed) while partially upholding the defendants' counterclaim for revocation: the patent EP 2 755 901 B1 (egg packaging) was revoked in part, with the counterclaim otherwise dismissed. Priority, inventive step, and equivalence were the key issues.
- 2025-07-30UPC_CFI_208/2024Munich LDProcedural onlyProcedural order (in German) granting Renault SAS (a third party allegedly threatened with infringement of EP 1 770 912 B1 by Avago Technologies) access to the case file and register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for the completed proceedings, which were terminated by withdrawal of both the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The court confirmed that third-party access may be granted to closed proceedings.
- 2025-07-28UPC_CFI_492/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division issued a procedural order granting Roborock Germany GmbH (and co-defendants Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd. and Roborock International B.V.) an extension of time for filing their preliminary objection, Statement of Defence and counterclaim for revocation in the infringement action brought by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 3 030 943. The extension was agreed by the claimant and was justified by case complexity and the need to align deadlines across all defendants.
- 2025-06-06UPC_CFI_471/2023Mannheim LDNot infringedThe Mannheim Local Division ruled on the infringement action and revocation counterclaim regarding EP 2 479 680 (adaptive bitrate HTTP streaming). The infringement claim was dismissed as the defendants' systems did not literally or equivalently infringe the patent. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed; the patent was maintained in amended form under Auxiliary Request 12. Infringement costs were borne by the claimants; revocation counterclaim costs were borne by the defendants. Each party bore its own representation costs. The dispute value was set at EUR 20,000,000.
- 2025-04-23UPC_CFI_471/2023Mannheim LDProcedural onlyPre-trial procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning EP 2 479 680 (adaptive bitrate streaming), confirming the oral hearing date and identifying key contested issues, including claim construction of the HTTP streaming method claims, direct and equivalent infringement, and the defendant's invalidity counterclaim. The order is preparatory and contains no substantive ruling.
- 2025-03-11UPC_CFI_201/2024Munich LDProcedural onlyOrder from Munich Local Division dated 11 March 2025 on procedural matters arising from a preliminary injunction dispute between Syngenta and Sumi Agro. The panel upheld the judge-rapporteur's earlier order dismissing Sumi Agro's application to revoke provisional measures (which had been granted on 27 August 2024). The panel held that Syngenta had filed and paid court fees for the main proceedings in time to satisfy R. 213(1) and R. 15(2) RoP, confirming that payment does not require receipt by the court before the deadline, only that the fee was paid. Syngenta's application for re-establishment of rights was also dismissed as unfounded. Leave to appeal was granted given the fundamental interpretive issues involved.