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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
No merits decisions in the current scope.
PI grant rate
—
0 granted · 0 denied · 2 total decisions
PI grant rate (conservative)
0%
Granted / total PI decisions (incl. interim, withdrawn)
Infringement rate
—
Revocation rate
—
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
64% 14 / 22
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Procedural & sub-applications138
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Munich LD136 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2026-01-13UPC_CFI_1624/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division (in German) granted the claimant re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP for missing the deadline to initiate cost proceedings following a cost ratio decision, finding an excusable misunderstanding of the legal situation despite legal representation; a dissenting opinion was appended.
- 2026-01-13UPC_CFI_1624/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division (English version) granted the claimant re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP for missing the deadline to initiate cost proceedings, with a dissenting opinion holding the application should be inadmissible for lack of legal interest.
- 2025-10-17UPC_CFI_404/2025Munich LDCosts onlyThe Munich Local Division issued a costs decision in favour of Edwards Lifesciences against Meril, ruling on the reasonableness and proportionality of claimed costs including travel expenses and multiple representatives, and awarding costs in proceedings of above-average complexity.
- 2025-09-09UPC_APP_35786/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyMunich Local Division procedural order in infringement proceedings concerning a patent for robot vacuum cleaners (EP 3 494 446) brought by Papst Licensing against Ecovacs entities. ECOVACS Europe GmbH (defendant 2) requested an extension of deadlines for preliminary objection (to 26 September 2025) and for statement of defence/revocation counterclaim (to 26 November 2025), on the condition that it would also accept service and act as representative for the other Ecovacs defendants not yet separately represented. This would create uniform deadline arrangements for all defendants.
- 2025-09-04UPC_APP_35977/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in the UERAN Technology v. Xiaomi infringement proceedings, addressing scheduling and procedural management of the multi-defendant action concerning EP 2 661 133.
- 2025-09-04UPC_APP_33992/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division issued a procedural order addressing Belparts Group N.V.'s application under R.302.3 RoP to have the counterclaim for infringement from parallel Central Division Paris proceedings consolidated with the present infringement action against IMI Hydronic entities concerning EP3812870.
- 2025-09-04UPC_APP_35978/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyProcedural order from the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_610/2025) on a request by Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH to set uniform deadlines for all defendants in a new infringement action by UERAN Technology LLC, pending service on remaining Xiaomi defendants. The order addressed procedural harmonisation where most defendants had not yet been served.
- 2025-09-02UPC_APP_35439/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyProcedural order of the Munich Local Division (presiding judge Zigann) granting claimants Shanghai Jinko and Zhejiang Jinko Solar's application to stay the infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_119/2025) under Rules 295(d) and 295(m) RoP and the revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_401/2025) under Rule 295(d) RoP against LONGi Solar and related defendants. The stay was requested because the parties were in ongoing comprehensive settlement negotiations. Most LONGi defendants consented; for Soltech Energy GbR (defendant 4), the stay was justified in the interests of proper administration of justice. The interim conference and oral hearing dates were cancelled.