Outcome base rates

No merits decisions in the current scope.

• Procedural & sub-applications1,006

• Munich LD234 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Dusseldorf LD167 casesPI grant rate: 100%Infringement rate: 100%Revocation rate: —
• Court of Appeal142 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Mannheim LD107 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Paris CD77 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Hamburg LD42 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• The Hague LD40 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Milan LD36 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Paris LD35 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Nordic-Baltic RD25 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Milan CD24 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
• Munich CD17 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —

• 2026-03-20UPC_CFI_1849/2025Dusseldorf LDProcedural onlyOrder by the President of the Court of First Instance on HyGear B.V.'s request to change the language of the proceedings to the language of the patent (English) under Art. 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP. The case involves Topsoe A/S's inspection and evidence preservation order against HyGear, SYPOX GmbH, Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts GmbH and Technical University of Munich concerning EP 3 802 413. Headnotes: when balancing interests on language change, defendant's position is decisive if interests are equal; efficient communication among defendants without translation is especially important in accelerated proceedings.
• 2026-03-06UPC_CFI_282/2026Lisbon LDProcedural onlyLisbon Local Division granted Gowling WLG's application for public access to pleadings filed in the closed preliminary injunction proceedings UPC_CFI_41/2025 (Boehringer v. Zentiva Portugal), pursuant to R. 262.1(b) RoP. Access to specific named pleadings was granted, but a general request for 'evidence' was rejected as insufficiently particularised.
• 2026-02-24UPC_CoA_10/2026Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal ruled on public access to the register under R. 262.1(b) RoP in the Sumi Agro v Syngenta proceedings. The Court established that reasoned requests for written pleadings and evidence lodged at the Court of First Instance must be made to the relevant CFI Division, while requests for documents lodged at the Court of Appeal must be made to the CoA. The Court clarified the allocation of responsibilities between Registrar and Deputy-Registrar and held that a request for access must be specified and cannot require the Court to search and select documents based on relevance criteria set by the requesting party. The decision resolved a jurisdictional question about which court body handles public access requests.
• 2026-02-24UPC_CoA_9/2026Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal ruled on a request by Gowling WLG for public access to the register (R. 262.1(b) RoP) in the Boehringer Ingelheim v. Zentiva proceedings. The Court held that reasoned requests for access to written pleadings lodged at the Court of First Instance must be directed to the relevant CFI division, not the Court of Appeal. Gowling WLG's request for access to pleadings (excluding exhibits) was granted to the extent it did not relate to confidential information. The request for access to exhibits was dismissed as insufficiently specified.
• 2026-02-19UPC_CFI_283/2026Paris LDProcedural onlyThe Paris Local Division (judge-rapporteur) granted Gowling WLG's application under R. 262.1(b) RoP for access to specific documents in the case file of UPC_CFI_697/2025 (Merz v Viatris provisional measures proceedings). Access was granted to certain procedural pleadings and exhibits concerning specific procedural issues (page limits in objections, extension of time in provisional measures proceedings, and the 'unreasonable delay' criterion under R. 211.4 RoP), but denied for other documents not relevant to the stated purpose. The application was found admissible as Gowling demonstrated a legitimate interest in understanding the court's handling of provisional measures.
• 2026-02-11UPC_CFI_274/2023Hamburg LDDismissedHamburg Local Division dismissed Fives ECL's claim for damages (lost profits) against REEL GmbH in determination of damages proceedings. The Court found that Fives ECL had not sufficiently demonstrated that the profit loss was causally linked to the patent infringement, given that the infringer could have submitted an alternative non-infringing offer. National German law applied as the relevant facts occurred before 1 June 2023.
• 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.
• 2026-02-02UPC_CFI_657/2025Dusseldorf LDCosts onlyThe Düsseldorf Local Division issued a cost decision following the merits judgment of 16 June 2025 (10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience), apportioning costs of PI proceedings and main action proceedings at a 30%/70% ratio (claimant/defendant) based on the parties' respective success.