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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
63%patentees prevail on the merits
8 merits decisions; 13 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
5 won · 3 lost · ↓ 40.0pp vs. prior 12 months
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2024: 100% (2/2)
- 2025: 50% (2/4)
- 2026: 100% (1/1)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Mannheim LD63%(n=8)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 3 losses…
100%
Patent invalidated — 0 (0%)No infringement found — 3 (100%)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
71%
5 infringed · 2 not infringed
Revocation rate
—
0 revoked / partially · 0 maintained / amended
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
33% 5 / 15
Outcomes by category (detailed)
Stacked breakdown using sharper outcome enums — revocation cases split into revoked_full / revoked_partial / maintained_as_*, etc.
Settlement timing
When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.
By technology sector
Top sectors by case count (filter scope applied).
By case category
How outcome rates differ across the six L2 buckets.
- Infringement43
- Revocation21
- Other8
- Provisional measures3
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Mannheim LD75 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 71%Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2026-02-27UPC_CFI_344/2025Mannheim LDProcedural onlyThe Mannheim Local Division (judge-rapporteur Johansson) ordered Defendant 1 (SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.) to pay a separate court fee for its counterclaim for revocation within 14 days, ruling that the fee already paid by Defendants 2-4 for their earlier counterclaim does not cover Defendant 1's subsequently filed separate counterclaim, even if the content is the same. Failure to pay may result in a default decision under R. 355 RoP.
- 2026-02-12UPC_CFI_575/2025Mannheim LDDismissedThe Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection filed by all seven defendants (led by Sovex Systems and Solvest entities) in Honeywell's infringement action concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The Court retained jurisdiction over the Dutch defendants under Art. 33(1) UPCA and rejected the defendants' arguments challenging international jurisdiction over Hemtech (Bosnia and Herzegovina) under Art. 31 UPCA and Art. 71b Brussels I Recast. The Court found Honeywell had sufficiently asserted German-directed infringing acts at the pleadings stage, without needing to pre-judge the merits. Leave to appeal the rejection was not granted by the judge-rapporteur.
- 2026-01-30UPC_CFI_365/2023Mannheim LDoutcomeName.otherThe Mannheim Local Division confirmed the earlier imposition of penalties order of 20 January 2026 against Kodak GmbH and related entities for non-compliance with a final judgment requiring provision of financial and technical information to FUJIFILM Corporation (EP 3 511 174). The Court rejected Kodak's challenge and upheld the maximum daily penalty as justified given the extent and seriousness of the non-compliance. Leave to appeal was granted to develop UPC case law on enforcement measures.
- 2026-01-13UPC_CFI_850/2024Mannheim LDProcedural onlyThe Mannheim Local Division issued a further procedural order in ZTE v. Samsung addressing Samsung's request to produce a licence agreement, granting confidentiality protection under R. 262A RoP and permitting Samsung to file a further pleading on FRAND topics under R. 36 RoP.
- 2025-12-23UPC_CFI_538/2025Mannheim LDWithdrawnSun Patent Trust withdrew its infringement action concerning EP 2 903 267 against all defendants (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and associated entities) before closure of the written procedure. Defendants 1-4 and 6-8 consented; Defendant 5 (ASD SAS) was unrepresented. No cost compensation was sought. Sun Patent Trust was ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP.
- 2025-12-23UPC_CFI_499/2025Mannheim LDWithdrawnNEC Corporation withdrew its infringement action against all defendants (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and associated entities) before closure of the written procedure. All represented defendants consented. Defendant 5 (ASD SAS) was unrepresented but showed no interest in proceedings. No cost compensation was sought. NEC was ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP.
- 2025-12-23UPC_CFI_501/2025Mannheim LDWithdrawnNEC Corporation withdrew its infringement action concerning EP 3 057 321 against all defendants (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and associated entities) before closure of the written procedure. All represented defendants consented. Defendant 5 (ASD SAS) was unrepresented. No cost compensation was sought. NEC was ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9(b)(i) and R.370.11 RoP.
- 2025-12-23UPC_CFI_850/2024Mannheim LDProcedural onlyThe Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order in ZTE v. Samsung proceedings addressing Samsung's request to produce a licence agreement and requests for further written pleadings under R. 36/263 RoP on FRAND defence, as well as scheduling of an interim conference.