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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
33%patentees prevail on the merits
6 merits decisions; 3 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
2 won · 4 lost · ↓ 66.7pp vs. prior 12 months
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2024: 50% (1/2)
- 2025: 50% (1/2)
- 2026: 0% (0/1)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Paris CD40%(n=5)
- Vienna LD0%(n=1)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 4 losses…
75%
25%
Patent invalidated — 3 (75%)No infringement found — 1 (25%)
PI grant rate
100%
1 granted · 0 denied · 1 total decisions
PI grant rate (conservative)
100%
Granted / total PI decisions (incl. interim, withdrawn)
Infringement rate
0%
0 infringed · 1 not infringed
Revocation rate
50%
2 revoked / partially · 2 maintained / amended
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
11% 2 / 19
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Appeals43
- Revocation16
- Other8
- Infringement5
- Provisional measures1
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Court of Appeal43 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Paris CD19 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: 50%
- Mannheim LD3 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Munich LD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Vienna LD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 0%Revocation rate: —
- Dusseldorf LD2 casesPI grant rate: 100%Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Milan CD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Hamburg LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 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).
- 2026-02-17UPC_CoA_302/2025Court of AppealInfringedCourt of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, which had revoked the patent. The Court of Appeal upheld the patent's validity (rejecting the counterclaim for revocation), found patent infringement, and issued orders including a permanent injunction, recall, and destruction of infringing products. Provisional lump-sum damages of EUR 20,000 were awarded, with full damages to be determined in subsequent proceedings. (German-language version)
- 2026-02-17UPC_CoA_302/2025Court of AppealInfringedCourt of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, which had revoked the patent. The Court of Appeal upheld the patent's validity (rejecting the counterclaim for revocation), found patent infringement, and issued orders including a permanent injunction, recall, and destruction of infringing products. Provisional lump-sum damages of EUR 20,000 were awarded, with full damages to be determined in subsequent proceedings. (English-language version)
- 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.
- 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.
- 2025-12-04UPC_CFI_307/2025Dusseldorf LDProcedural onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the Aesculap v. Shanghai Bojin medical instrument case, scheduling the oral hearing and addressing requests for claim extension (R. 263), addition of a party (R. 305), and reinstatement in prior status (R. 320).
- 2025-11-25UPC_CoA_464/2024Court of AppealPatent maintainedThe Court of Appeal dismissed the Meril companies' appeals against the revocation and counterclaim revocation decisions and Edwards' appeal against the infringement decision, upholding the patent EP 3 646 825 (heart valve). Key rulings: (I–VIII) All revocation and counterclaim appeals rejected; Meril bears 60% of Edwards' costs in the revocation proceedings and Edwards bears 40% of Meril's costs. (IX–X) The infringement decision was partially set aside: the injunction and preliminary damages order do not extend to XL devices (30.5mm and 32mm) that had not been scheduled for implantation in a patient by 15 November 2024. Preliminary damages reduced to not exceed €363,000 for Meril India and Meril Germany. The value of the proceedings is €8,000,000.
- 2025-11-07UPC_CoA_900/2025Court of AppealDismissedCourt of Appeal (judge-rapporteur) rejected Lepu Medical's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favour of Occlutech. The CoA held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that the appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect. Lepu's claim that enforcing the injunction would damage its reputation was insufficient to outweigh Occlutech's interest in preventing imminent patent infringement.