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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.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
16 merits decisions; 11 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
10 won · 6 lost · ↓ 8.3pp vs. prior 12 months
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2023: 0% (0/1)
- 2024: 75% (6/8)
- 2025: 80% (4/5)
- 2026: 0% (0/2)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Paris CD71%(n=14)
- Munich LD0%(n=2)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 6 losses…
100%
Patent invalidated — 6 (100%)No infringement found — 0 (0%)
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 interim, withdrawn)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
0%
0 infringed · 1 not infringed
Revocation rate
27%
4 revoked / partially · 11 maintained / amended
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
18% 4 / 22
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Revocation48
- Infringement32
- Other18
- Appeals1
- Provisional measures1
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Paris CD61 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: 27%
- Munich LD22 casesPI grant rate: 0%Infringement rate: 0%Revocation rate: —
- Hamburg LD7 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Dusseldorf LD6 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Mannheim LD4 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2026-02-18UPC_CFI_466/2025Dusseldorf LDProcedural onlyProvisional procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division (judge-rapporteur Dr. Zhilova) on an application by defendants Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. The defendants sought to restrict access to specific paragraphs of their defense pleadings (Duplik) and certain exhibits (HE 137-145) as trade secrets. The order addressed the classification of the information as confidential and the specification of which persons would be granted access.
- 2026-02-11UPC_CFI_336/2024Dusseldorf LDProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division issued a decision under R. 265 RoP on the withdrawal or termination of proceedings in case UPC_CFI_336/2024.
- 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.
- 2026-01-12UPC_CFI_350/2025Paris CDPartially revokedParis Central Division (Paris seat) issued a decision by default partially revoking European patent EP2728089 ('Sequenced chamber wave generator controller and method'). The court found Claim 1 invalid for lack of novelty (anticipated by prior art D1 combined with D3, i.e. obvious) within the scope of the UPC contracting member states in which the patent was in force. The patent was partially revoked as to Claim 1. American Wave Machines failed to participate. Costs borne by American Wave. The patent was not entirely revoked; the revocation was limited to Claim 1's territorial scope in UPC states.
- 2026-01-07UPC_CFI_433/2024Paris CDRevokedDecision of the Paris Central Division (Panel 2) dated 7 January 2026 on Microsoft Corporation's counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 671 173 (mobile location-based search technology) owned by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy. The court found the patent invalid for lack of inventive step over prior art documents BP07 and BP08. Auxiliary Requests I through further auxiliary requests were examined: Auxiliary Request I was found inadmissible or failed on added subject-matter; subsequent auxiliary requests lacked clarity or were inadmissible. The patent was thus revoked. The decision also addresses the requirements for admissible patent amendment applications under R. 30 RoP.
- 2025-12-30UPC_CFI_1771/2025Paris CDDismissedDecision by the Paris Central Division (acting as administrative court under Rule 97 RoP) dismissing PAPST LICENSING's application to annul the EPO's decision rejecting its request for unitary effect for EP 3 327 608. The court upheld the EPO's refusal on the basis that the patent did not designate Malta (a participating member state at the time of grant), and unitary effect requires designation of all participating member states as per Art. 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012. Key holdings: unitary effect tied to grant, not filing; territorial protection covers all participating states regardless of use; EPO's rejection was mandatory under Rule 7(2) DOEPS; proportionality and fundamental rights arguments rejected.
- 2025-12-09UPC_CFI_999/2025Paris CDProcedural onlyParis Central Division rejected Nanoval's preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) seeking dismissal of ALD France's revocation action. The Court held that ALD France S.A.S. and the ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (party in the Munich Local Division proceedings) are not the same party, so the revocation action before the Central Division is not inadmissible on grounds of party identity.
- 2025-10-20UPC_CFI_189/2024Paris CDPatent amendedDecision of the Paris Central Division (Paris Seat) dated 20 October 2025 in the revocation action by Meril entities against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and the counterclaim for infringement by Edwards regarding EP 4 151 181 B1 (prosthetic heart valve technology). The revocation action was rejected; however, the patent was maintained only in the form of Auxiliary Request 2 (amended). The infringement counterclaim was granted: Meril entities were found to infringe claims 1, 4, 6–12 as amended. Edwards was granted an injunction preventing Meril from all infringing acts with products according to those claims in Contracting Member States, with an exception for XL-size valves (exceeding 30 mm) which was denied on proportionality grounds. Meril was ordered to provide information on infringing products, recall and destroy infringing products, and publish the decision in five media. Damages are to be determined in separate proceedings. Costs of the counterclaim were borne by Meril jointly and severally; costs of the revocation action were shared (each party bears own costs given the patent amendment dynamic).