Outcome base rates

No merits decisions in the current scope.

• Appeals32

• Court of Appeal32 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —

• 2026-03-25UPC_CoA_528/2024Court of AppealWithdrawnSanofi and Regeneron withdrew their application for rehearing (R.245 RoP) concerning the Court of Appeal's decision of 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024) which had rejected the revocation of EP 3 666 797 and set aside the Central Division Munich's first-instance decision. The application for withdrawal was permitted. The decision covers both UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024. Court fees were to be reimbursed accordingly.
• 2026-03-24UPC_CoA_44/2026Court of AppealProcedural onlyOrder of the Court of Appeal (single judge) on an application for suspensive effect (Rule 223 RoP) filed by ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH in its appeal against a Düsseldorf Local Division decision largely upholding CUP&CINO's infringement claim for EP 3 398 487 (milk frother). The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility and merits of the suspensive effect application. The underlying first-instance decision had found infringement of EP 3 398 487 and rejected the revocation counterclaim. No final ruling on suspensive effect is visible from the excerpt; the order concerns procedural steps and assessment of the application.
• 2026-03-13UPC_CoA_922/2025Court of AppealDismissedOrder by the Court of Appeal (Panel 1d, 13 March 2026) partially reversing the Paris Local Division's order of 27 November 2025 on international jurisdiction. The CoA held that UPC jurisdiction based on Art. 7(2) Brussels Ibis (place of damage) is limited to UPC territory and does not extend to infringement in non-member states (Switzerland, Spain, UK, Ireland, Norway, Poland). The first-instance decision to assert jurisdiction over non-UPC territories was set aside because Keeex's Statement of claim lacked the necessary facts to justify Art. 71b(3) jurisdiction. The case concerns patent EP 2 949 070 and defendants Adobe, OpenAI, Truepic, Joint Development Foundation and others.
• 2026-03-13UPC_CoA_922/2025Court of AppealDismissedFrench version of the Court of Appeal order of 13 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_922/2025 and related cases 923-925/2025). Same decision as the English version: partial reversal of Paris Local Division order on international jurisdiction; UPC jurisdiction under Art. 7(2) Brussels Ibis limited to UPC territory; non-UPC national parts of EP 2 949 070 (CH, ES, GB, IE, NO, PL) outside UPC jurisdiction absent sufficient Art. 71ter(3) pleading.
• 2026-03-11UPC_CoA_934/2025Court of AppealSettledCourt of Appeal accepted the withdrawal of the application for provisional measures following an out-of-court settlement between the parties. The Düsseldorf Local Division had previously granted provisional measures to Roche against Menarini entities. Following settlement, the proceedings were declared terminated. Each party bears its own costs.
• 2026-03-06UPC_CoA_895/2025Court of AppealSettledThe Court of Appeal permitted Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s withdrawal of its appeal (UPC_CoA_895/2025 and UPC_CoA_896/2025) against the Local Division The Hague's decision of 10 October 2025 finding Black Sheep had infringed EP 2 432 351 and granting an injunction and corrective measures. The withdrawal was filed following settlement discussions, with HL Display's consent. The Court also granted Black Sheep's application for reimbursement of 60% of court fees under R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP.
• 2026-02-18UPC_CoA_890/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders requiring Syntorr LP to provide security for costs in infringement proceedings against Arthrex regarding EP 2 670 898. Identical reasoning to UPC_CoA_889/2025: ATE insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement sufficient; security for costs dismissed; bank guarantee ordered released.
• 2026-02-18UPC_CoA_889/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders requiring Syntorr LP to provide security for costs (EUR 2,000,000) in infringement proceedings against Arthrex. The court found that the existence of an after-the-event (ATE) litigation insurance policy with an anti-avoidance endorsement adequately addressed concerns about enforceability of a costs order, and therefore security for costs should not have been ordered. The bank guarantee provided by Syntorr was ordered to be released.