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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
58%patentees prevail on the merits
12 merits decisions; 24 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
7 won · 5 lost · ↓ 57.1pp vs. prior 12 months
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2023: 100% (1/1)
- 2024: 100% (2/2)
- 2025: 42.9% (3/7)
- 2026: 100% (1/1)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Paris LD100%(n=2)
- Mannheim LD50%(n=10)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 5 losses…
20%
80%
Patent invalidated — 1 (20%)No infringement found — 4 (80%)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
70%
7 infringed · 3 not infringed
Revocation rate
—
0 revoked / partially · 0 maintained / amended
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
38% 9 / 24
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Infringement88
- Revocation46
- Other26
- Provisional measures4
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Mannheim LD152 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 63%Revocation rate: —
- Paris LD12 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 100%Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2026-02-27UPC_CFI_344/2025Mannheim LDProcedural onlyThe Mannheim Local Division (judge-rapporteur Johansson) ordered Defendant 1 (SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.) to pay a separate court fee for its counterclaim for revocation within 14 days, ruling that the fee already paid by Defendants 2-4 for their earlier counterclaim does not cover Defendant 1's subsequently filed separate counterclaim, even if the content is the same. Failure to pay may result in a default decision under R. 355 RoP.
- 2026-02-24UPC_CFI_735/2024Mannheim LDoutcomeName.otherThe Mannheim Local Division issued a decision in TRUMPF Laser UK v. IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 2 951 625 (optical apparatus for laser light), addressing infringement and a counterclaim for revocation; the outcome on infringement/validity requires additional pages not captured in the excerpt.
- 2026-02-18UPC_CFI_819/2024Mannheim LDWithdrawnThe Mannheim Local Division permitted Corning's partial withdrawal of its infringement action (EP 3 296 274) against defendants Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH and Hisense Europe Holding GmbH (defendants 1 and 2) under R. 265 RoP. The infringement action continues against TCL and LG (defendants 3–6). Simultaneously, the counterclaim for revocation filed by defendants 1 and 2 was also withdrawn and declared closed. Corning bears the costs of the withdrawn infringement proceedings against defendants 1–2; defendants 1–2 receive a 40% reimbursement (EUR 8,000) of their counterclaim court fees.
- 2026-02-12UPC_CFI_575/2025Mannheim LDDismissedThe Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection filed by all seven defendants (led by Sovex Systems and Solvest entities) in Honeywell's infringement action concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The Court retained jurisdiction over the Dutch defendants under Art. 33(1) UPCA and rejected the defendants' arguments challenging international jurisdiction over Hemtech (Bosnia and Herzegovina) under Art. 31 UPCA and Art. 71b Brussels I Recast. The Court found Honeywell had sufficiently asserted German-directed infringing acts at the pleadings stage, without needing to pre-judge the merits. Leave to appeal the rejection was not granted by the judge-rapporteur.
- 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.
- 2026-01-30UPC_CFI_365/2023Mannheim LDoutcomeName.otherThe Mannheim Local Division confirmed the earlier imposition of penalties order of 20 January 2026 against Kodak GmbH and related entities for non-compliance with a final judgment requiring provision of financial and technical information to FUJIFILM Corporation (EP 3 511 174). The Court rejected Kodak's challenge and upheld the maximum daily penalty as justified given the extent and seriousness of the non-compliance. Leave to appeal was granted to develop UPC case law on enforcement measures.
- 2026-01-26UPC_CFI_2045/2025Mannheim LDProcedural onlyOrder of the President of the Court of First Instance granting Amazon's application under R.323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language in which the patent was granted). The court found that none of the defendants is based in Germany, that they all require English for internal coordination, and that the circumstances of the case and fairness under Art.49(5) UPCA justified the change.
- 2026-01-13UPC_CFI_850/2024Mannheim LDProcedural onlyThe Mannheim Local Division issued a further procedural order in ZTE v. Samsung addressing Samsung's request to produce a licence agreement, granting confidentiality protection under R. 262A RoP and permitting Samsung to file a further pleading on FRAND topics under R. 36 RoP.