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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
0%patentees prevail on the merits
2 merits decisions; 4 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
0 won · 2 lost · Insufficient prior-period data
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2023: 0% (0/1)
- 2024: 0% (0/1)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Munich LD0%(n=1)
- Paris LD0%(n=1)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 2 losses…
100%
Patent invalidated — 2 (100%)No infringement found — 0 (0%)
PI grant rate
50%
1 granted · 1 denied · 2 total decisions
PI grant rate (conservative)
50%
Granted / total PI decisions (incl. interim, withdrawn)
Infringement rate
—
0 infringed · 0 not infringed
Revocation rate
—
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
0% 0 / 6
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.
- Infringement9
- Appeals6
- Revocation6
- Other2
- Provisional measures2
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Munich LD9 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Court of Appeal7 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Paris LD5 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- The Hague LD4 casesPI grant rate: 50%Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2025-10-22UPC_CFI_587/2025The Hague LDPI deniedThe Hague Local Division dismissed Abbott Diabetes Care's application for provisional measures against Sinocare and A.Menarini Diagnostics concerning EP 3 988 471, finding that the GlucoMen iCan device does not infringe claim 1 because event data icons are displayed in a separate panel rather than within the timeline graph.
- 2025-10-17UPC_CFI_624/2025The Hague LDPI grantedThe Hague Local Division granted Abbott Diabetes Care a preliminary injunction against Sinocare and A.Menarini Diagnostics regarding infringement of continuous glucose monitoring patent EP 4 344 633 (FreeStyle Libre technology), including information orders and delivery-up of infringing GlucoMen iCan products.
- 2025-10-03UPC_CoA_19/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyIdentical rectification order under R.353 VerfO correcting headnote 7 of the 3 October 2025 decision, corresponding to the Belkin counterclaim for revocation appeal (UPC_CoA_19/2025). Same substance as rectification in UPC_CoA_534/2024 and UPC_CoA_683/2024.
- 2025-10-03UPC_CoA_683/2024Court of AppealProcedural onlyIdentical rectification order under R.353 VerfO correcting headnote 7 of the 3 October 2025 decision, corresponding to the Philips cross-appeal (UPC_CoA_683/2024). Same substance as rectification in UPC_CoA_534/2024 and UPC_CoA_19/2025.
- 2025-10-03UPC_CoA_534/2024Court of AppealInfringedCourt of Appeal decision on patent infringement and counterclaim for invalidity. Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc. and Belkin Limited were found to infringe Philips' patent EP 2 867 997. The appeal court partially modified the first-instance judgment: it ordered Belkin (GmbH, International, Limited) to recall, permanently remove and destroy the infringing products; excluded acts by Belkin GmbH and Belkin Limited in Germany from the injunction; and set penalty payments of up to EUR 100,000 per day for breach of the cease-and-desist order. Philips' cross-appeal seeking electronic disclosure was rejected. Costs were split 50/50 between Belkin (three entities) and Philips for the infringement action; Belkin bore the invalidity counterclaim costs. The patent was maintained (revocation counterclaim dismissed).
- 2025-10-03UPC_CoA_534/2024Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal issued a rectification order under R.353 VerfO (Rules of Procedure), correcting an obvious error in headnote 7 of its decision of 3 October 2025 in the appeal concerning Philips v. Belkin (infringement action and counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 867 997). The corrected headnote 7 now reads that claimant requests for recall, removal from distribution channels, and destruction must generally specify a deadline for completion, which must already be set in the decision or final order. This is one of three identical rectification orders (also UPC_CoA_19/2025 and UPC_CoA_683/2024), corresponding to the three related appeals.
- 2025-07-28UPC_CFI_492/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyThe Munich Local Division issued a procedural order granting Roborock Germany GmbH (and co-defendants Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd. and Roborock International B.V.) an extension of time for filing their preliminary objection, Statement of Defence and counterclaim for revocation in the infringement action brought by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG concerning EP 3 030 943. The extension was agreed by the claimant and was justified by case complexity and the need to align deadlines across all defendants.
- 2025-05-30APL_68523/2024Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal partially allowed Belkin's appeal and reduced the penalty payment (Zwangsgeld) imposed by the Munich Local Division for non-compliance with a disclosure order to EUR 42,000, while dismissing Philips's cross-appeal regarding disclosure in electronic form, and setting a new costs allocation.