Outcome base rates

No merits decisions in the current scope.

• Procedural & sub-applications51

• Milan LD29 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Munich LD15 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Nordic-Baltic RD3 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• The Hague LD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Mannheim LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —

• 2026-02-10UPC_CFI_1738/2025Milan LDCosts onlyThe Milan Local Division ruled on an application for a cost decision following the first-instance decision in UPC_CFI_178/2024 and 432/2024. The court held the application was not rendered premature by Progress's pending appeal, as cost proceedings are independent from appeal proceedings.
• 2025-12-05UPC_CFI_342/2025Milan LDProcedural onlyThe Milan Local Division dismissed the defendants' challenge to a previously granted evidence preservation order in the 3V Sigma v. AGA/ACEF chemical patent case, holding that the claimant had fulfilled its duty of disclosure and that sufficient prima facie evidence of infringement was presented to justify the order.
• 2025-10-27UPC_CFI_127/2025Milan LDProcedural onlyThe Milan Local Division, following panel review (R.333 RoP) at Xelom's request, confirmed the ex-parte evidence preservation order (sequestro / saisie) issued in favour of Prinoth S.p.A. against Xelom s.r.l. The order confirmed the preservation of evidence relating to EP 1 995 159 and EP 2 507 436 (snow grooming / ski slope preparation equipment). Key holdings: (1) For ex-parte evidence preservation, the court's assessment is necessarily ex ante and does not require proof of certain destruction—statistical probability of evidence alteration suffices. (2) Procedural correctness of the patent holder must be assessed relative to the patent at issue; references to foreign patent prosecution are irrelevant. (3) The adequate security (garanzia) must be proportionate to potential damage and costs of litigation at the evidence acquisition stage only, not projected across the entire future proceedings.
• 2025-09-23UPC_CFI_342/2025Milan LDProcedural onlyThe Milan Local Division issued an order on the confidentiality of documents seized during evidence preservation proceedings, setting a temporary confidentiality regime and inviting the parties to submit observations on 3V Sigma's access to the unredacted confidential documentation.
• 2025-09-09UPC_APP_33377/2025Milan LDSettledThe Milan Local Division allowed mutual withdrawal of all claims in the Oerlikon Textile v. Himson Engineering infringement action (UPC_CFI_240/2023) following a settlement reached by both parties, with costs fully offset.
• 2025-07-15UPC_APP_24226/2025Milan LDSettledMilan Local Division received Pirelli Tyre S.p.A.'s application under Rule 365 RoP to record a settlement agreement with Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH (effective 25 February 2025) in an infringement action over EP 2 519 412. The proceedings against Kingtyre Deutschland were to be withdrawn pursuant to the settlement; the settlement amount was to remain confidential. The case against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. (no settlement) continues with all of Pirelli's claims maintained.
• 2025-07-14UPC_APP_26266/2025Milan LDProcedural onlyThe Milan Local Division rejected Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber's application for re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 RoP to file a late request for review of the provisional seizure order executed at the EICMA trade fair, finding that Pirelli had properly served the order at the time of execution despite the respondent's refusal to accept service.
• 2025-07-08UPC_APP_31860/2025Milan LDProcedural onlyThe Milan Local Division issued a procedural order determining the value of the infringement action in the Progress Maschinen v. AWM/Schnell proceedings for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs under Rule 370.6 RoP.