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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.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
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
—
Revocation rate
—
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
0% 0 / 4
Outcomes by category (detailed)
Stacked breakdown using sharper outcome enums — revocation cases split into revoked_full / revoked_partial / maintained_as_*, etc.
By technology sector
Top sectors by case count (filter scope applied).
By case category
How outcome rates differ across the six L2 buckets.
- Appeals8
- Infringement5
- Revocation1
- Provisional measures1
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Court of Appeal8 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Munich LD4 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Hamburg LD3 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2026-02-04UPC_CoA_891/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal ruled on the admissibility of Centripetal's amended requests in its appeal concerning an application for preserving evidence and inspecting premises at Palo Alto's Mannheim offices. The order addresses whether amended requests submitted on appeal are admissible and how the preservation/inspection procedure should proceed. The Court ordered the evidence preservation and inspection subject to specified conditions. Judges: Klaus Grabinski (President), Peter Blok (judge-rapporteur), Emanuela Germano, Eric Augarde, Torsten Duhme.
- 2025-11-05UPC_CoA_762/2024Court of AppealRevokedCourt of Appeal decision (English) – duplicate/related filing to UPC_CoA_773/2024. Same substantive outcome: Seoul Viosys's LED patent claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 revoked for added matter; all infringement claims dismissed; Viosys ordered to bear costs of both instances.
- 2025-11-05UPC_CoA_762/2024Court of AppealRevokedGerman-language version of the Court of Appeal decision (UPC_CoA_762/2024 and 773/2024) in Seoul Viosys v expert. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the LED patent revoked for added matter. All infringement claims dismissed. Viosys ordered to bear all costs for both instances.
- 2025-11-05UPC_CoA_773/2024Court of AppealRevokedCourt of Appeal decision (English) on the appeal in the counterclaim for revocation and the related infringement action concerning Seoul Viosys's EP (LED patent, EP 698). The CoA found added matter in claim 1 of the patent (content extended beyond the earlier application as filed, particularly regarding embodiments with a single mesa). Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 revoked. Infringement action dismissed. Viosys ordered to pay expert's costs for both appeal and first instance proceedings. Key headnotes: court may raise added matter of its own motion; translation of international application governs content; patentee must demonstrate inaccuracy of its own translation.
- 2025-10-02UPC_CoA_764/2024Court of AppealRevokedSecond German-language version of the same Court of Appeal decision (UPC_CoA_764/2024 and 774/2024 – identical substantive outcome). Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 revoked for added matter; all infringement claims dismissed; Viosys ordered to bear all costs.
- 2025-10-02UPC_CoA_774/2024Court of AppealRevokedGerman-language version of the Court of Appeal decision in the Seoul Viosys v expert appeal (counterclaim for revocation and infringement action). Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the patent (LED device, EP 698) revoked for added matter in force for Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Sweden. All infringement claims dismissed. Viosys ordered to bear costs of both instances for both the revocation and the infringement action.
- 2025-10-02UPC_CoA_774/2024Court of AppealRevokedEnglish-language version of the Court of Appeal decision (UPC_CoA_764/2024 and 774/2024): Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of Seoul Viosys's LED patent revoked for added matter (single-mesa embodiment not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the parent application). All infringement claims dismissed. Viosys ordered to bear expert's costs for both appeal and first instance, in both the revocation and infringement actions.
- 2025-08-20APL_20125/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal ruled on an application for leave to appeal a cost decision and on a preliminary reference request to the CJEU (Art. 267 TFEU), providing extensive guidance on when the UPC must refer questions of EU law, while rejecting expert klein's proposed preliminary reference questions as not requiring a referral.