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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
36%patentees prevail on the merits
14 merits decisions; 32 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
5 won · 9 lost · ↓ 75.0pp vs. prior 12 months
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2023: 0% (0/1)
- 2024: 60% (3/5)
- 2025: 0% (0/4)
- 2026: 0% (0/1)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Munich LD36%(n=14)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 9 losses…
89%
Patent invalidated — 8 (89%)No infringement found — 1 (11%)
PI grant rate
75%
6 granted · 2 denied · 9 total decisions
PI grant rate (conservative)
67%
Granted / total PI decisions (incl. interim, withdrawn)
Infringement rate
67%
4 infringed · 2 not infringed
Revocation rate
100%
2 revoked / partially · 0 maintained / amended
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
28% 9 / 32
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Infringement93
- Revocation53
- Other37
- Provisional measures19
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Munich LD202 casesPI grant rate: 75%Infringement rate: 67%Revocation rate: 100%
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2026-01-13UPC_CFI_628/2024Munich LDNot infringedFinal decision on the merits in infringement action by Emboline, Inc. against AorticLab srl (EP 2 129 425, medical device). Court dismissed the infringement action finding the patent not infringed. The defendant's counterclaim for revocation was conditional (dependent on a finding of infringement), and since no infringement was found, no decision was made on the counterclaim. Both parties bear their own costs. Key headnotes: infringement not excluded by normal non-infringing operation if patent-compliant use remains possible; irregular use of a medical device in line with professional practice can constitute infringement; conditional counterclaim limited in scope (Rule 263.3 RoP).
- 2025-12-12UPC_CFI_525/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyOrder of the Munich Local Division granting a security for costs application (Rule 158 RoP) filed by OPPO, OnePlus, Realme and other defendants against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. (a claimant incorporated in Taiwan) in an infringement action. The Court found that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome given the absence of international agreements or national Taiwanese laws guaranteeing enforcement of foreign judgments, and ordered security in connection with the infringement action (but not the as-yet unfiled counterclaim for revocation).
- 2025-12-12UPC_CFI_146/2024Munich LDProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division issued a rectification order under Rule 353 RoP correcting factual errors in a prior decision in the Sanofi v. Stada/Dr Reddy/Zentiva proceedings, including corrections regarding marketing authorisation holders and expert witness attribution.
- 2025-12-12UPC_CFI_146/2024Munich LDRevokedThe Munich Local Division found patent EP 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel pharmaceutical formulations) invalid for lack of inventive step in infringement proceedings brought by Sanofi against STADA, Dr. Reddy's and Zentiva entities, dismissing the infringement claims.
- 2025-11-18UPC_CFI_804/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyOrder of the President of the Court of First Instance granting TP-Link's application under R.323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that only one of the seven defendants is based in Germany, that the relevant technology field predominantly uses English, and that the need for internal coordination and technical support among defendants justified the change on grounds of fairness under Art.49(5) UPCA.
- 2025-10-17UPC_CFI_693/2025Munich LDPI deniedThe Munich Local Division denied ONWARD Medical's application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against Niche Biomedical regarding EP 3 421 081 B1 (spinal cord stimulation), holding that the patent was likely invalid in its granted form and that auxiliary requests seeking provisional measures based on amended claim versions are generally inadmissible.
- 2025-10-17UPC_CFI_676/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division granted the defendants' request to extend and align procedural deadlines (preliminary objection and statement of defence) for all Xiaomi defendants, to match the later statutory deadlines applicable to the Chinese defendants who accepted service voluntarily.
- 2025-10-10UPC_CFI_688/2024Munich LDRevokedThe same Munich Local Division decision as UPC_CFI_303/2024, in the associated counterclaim proceedings: EP 3 972 309 revoked for added matter and infringement action dismissed.