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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
63%patentees prevail on the merits
8 merits decisions; 19 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
5 won · 3 lost · ↓ 50.0pp vs. prior 12 months
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2023: 66.7% (2/3)
- 2025: 50% (2/4)
- 2026: 100% (1/1)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Mannheim LD100%(n=1)
- Milan LD100%(n=1)
- Paris LD50%(n=6)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 3 losses…
67%
33%
Patent invalidated — 2 (67%)No infringement found — 1 (33%)
PI grant rate
0%
0 granted · 1 denied · 1 total decisions
PI grant rate (conservative)
0%
Granted / total PI decisions (incl. interim, withdrawn)
Infringement rate
86%
6 infringed · 1 not infringed
Revocation rate
—
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
33% 5 / 15
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Infringement45
- Revocation21
- Other11
- Provisional measures3
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Paris LD55 casesPI grant rate: 0%Infringement rate: 75%Revocation rate: —
- Mannheim LD13 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 100%Revocation rate: —
- Milan LD6 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 100%Revocation rate: —
- Hamburg LD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Brussels LD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Vienna LD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2026-03-24UPC_CFI_1049/2025Hamburg LDWithdrawnThe Hamburg Local Division ordered reimbursement of 60% of court fees to claimant BTL Medizintechnik GmbH following the previously granted withdrawal of its infringement action before closure of the written procedure, applying R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP (2025 version).
- 2026-03-23UPC_CFI_1963/2025Paris LDProcedural onlyParis Local Division (panel, on R.333 review) upheld the Judge-Rapporteur's order of 17 February 2026 rejecting Bosch's preliminary objections to the territorial competence of Paris Local Division. The panel confirmed that Art. 33.1(b) UPCA requires only a commercial link between all defendants (not a direct link between the anchor defendant and each co-defendant), and that 'same infringement' means infringement of the same patent by all defendants, not identical products.
- 2026-03-18UPC_CFI_1357/2025Brussels LDProcedural onlyBrussels Local Division ordered Establishment Labs SA to provide security for costs of EUR 600,000 within 21 days in both UPC_CFI_1357/2025 and UPC_CFI_629/2026 proceedings concerning EP 3 107 487 B1. The Court held that the claimant's non-EU incorporation (Costa Rica) and concerns about recoverability of a cost order justified the security requirement, rejecting other elements of the defendants' R. 158 application.
- 2026-02-17UPC_CFI_1963/2025Paris LDProcedural onlyParis Local Division rejected all of Bosch's preliminary objections to the jurisdiction and internal competence of the Paris Local Division in Valeo's infringement action. The court held that the condition in Art.33.1(b) UPCA ('action relates to the same infringement') requires violation of the same patent by all defendants but does not require identical infringing products. The Paris Local Division was found competent for all defendants. Costs deferred to merits decision.
- 2026-02-04UPC_CFI_530/2025Paris LDProcedural onlyParis Local Division rejected Adobe's application for a default decision against KEEEX under R.158.5 and R.355.1 RoP. The court held that KEEEX had complied with the order to provide a bank guarantee (required following an earlier procedural order of 19 December 2025) and that Adobe's formal objections to the guarantee were unsubstantiated. The lack of diligence required to justify a default decision was not established.
- 2026-01-23UPC_CFI_808/2025Paris LDPI deniedThe Paris Local Division rejected Guardant Health's application for provisional measures under three patents (EP 3 591 073, EP 3 443 066, EP 3 766 986) against Sophia Genetics. The court found issues of added matter in the divisional patent and insufficient evidence to demonstrate infringement with the required degree of certainty. Guardant Health's request regarding a fourth patent (EP 3 470 533) was withdrawn during proceedings. Guardant Health ordered to pay Sophia Genetics EUR 400,000 as interim costs.
- 2026-01-16UPC_CFI_702/2024Paris LDInfringedFinal decision (in French) in infringement action by IMC Créations against Mul-T-Lock France (EP 4 153 830, unitary patent - lock/padlock). Court found that the MVP 1000 padlock infringed the amended claims 1 and 6 of the unitary patent as limited. Revocation counterclaim rejected (claims 1 and 6 of the amended patent valid). Injunction and corrective measures (recall, removal from channels, destruction) ordered, with a 3-month delay before enforcement per parties' agreement. Disclosure of commercial information ordered. Mul-T-Lock to bear 90% of costs. Claims on the Swiss part of the patent rejected. Key headnotes: amended unitary patent takes effect from original grant date; national parts of European patent in non-UPC states assessed against the patent as originally granted.
- 2026-01-15UPC_CFI_1357/2025Brussels LDProcedural onlyThe Brussels Local Division issued a procedural order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) filed by GC Aesthetics and Romed N.V. challenging jurisdiction in the infringement action brought by Establishment Labs S.A. concerning EP 3 107 487 B1 (breast implant).