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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
67%patentees prevail on the merits
3 merits decisions; 2 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
2 won · 1 lost · Insufficient prior-period data
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2025: 100% (2/2)
- 2026: 0% (0/1)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Mannheim LD100%(n=1)
- Paris CD100%(n=1)
- Munich LD0%(n=1)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 1 loss…
100%
Patent invalidated — 0 (0%)No infringement found — 1 (100%)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
50%
1 infringed · 1 not infringed
Revocation rate
0%
0 revoked / partially · 1 maintained / amended
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
44% 4 / 9
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Appeals18
- Infringement6
- Revocation5
- Provisional measures2
- Other1
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Court of Appeal18 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Munich LD3 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 0%Revocation rate: —
- Mannheim LD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 100%Revocation rate: —
- Paris LD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Milan LD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Paris CD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: 0%
- Nordic-Baltic RD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Dusseldorf LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2026-02-13UPC_CFI_770/2024Milan LDProcedural onlyThe Milan Local Division issued a post-interim-conference order in Pirelli v. Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber, resolving preliminary objections (with SYR withdrawing a service objection) and addressing admissibility of photographs and product samples from the earlier seizure.
- 2026-01-13UPC_CFI_628/2024Munich LDNot infringedFinal decision on the merits in infringement action by Emboline, Inc. against AorticLab srl (EP 2 129 425, medical device). Court dismissed the infringement action finding the patent not infringed. The defendant's counterclaim for revocation was conditional (dependent on a finding of infringement), and since no infringement was found, no decision was made on the counterclaim. Both parties bear their own costs. Key headnotes: infringement not excluded by normal non-infringing operation if patent-compliant use remains possible; irregular use of a medical device in line with professional practice can constitute infringement; conditional counterclaim limited in scope (Rule 263.3 RoP).
- 2025-12-23UPC_CoA_691/2025Court of AppealWithdrawnThe Court of Appeal permitted the joint withdrawal of Lindal Dispenser GmbH's appeal against the Paris Central Division decision maintaining EP 3 655 346 as amended (revocation action UPC_CFI_202/2024). The proceedings were declared closed by consent. No cost order was made (both parties agreed). 60% of the appeal court fees were reimbursed to Lindal under R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP as the withdrawal was filed before the Statement of Response.
- 2025-12-18UPC_CFI_716/2024Mannheim LDInfringedThe Mannheim Local Division found that Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA infringed Polidoro's premixed burner patent EP 2 037 175 and granted an injunction, recall/removal, destruction, information order, interim damages, and publication of the decision.
- 2025-11-25UPC_CoA_464/2024Court of AppealPatent maintainedThe Court of Appeal dismissed the Meril companies' appeals against the revocation and counterclaim revocation decisions and Edwards' appeal against the infringement decision, upholding the patent EP 3 646 825 (heart valve). Key rulings: (I–VIII) All revocation and counterclaim appeals rejected; Meril bears 60% of Edwards' costs in the revocation proceedings and Edwards bears 40% of Meril's costs. (IX–X) The infringement decision was partially set aside: the injunction and preliminary damages order do not extend to XL devices (30.5mm and 32mm) that had not been scheduled for implantation in a patient by 15 November 2024. Preliminary damages reduced to not exceed €363,000 for Meril India and Meril Germany. The value of the proceedings is €8,000,000.
- 2025-11-07UPC_CoA_900/2025Court of AppealDismissedCourt of Appeal (judge-rapporteur) rejected Lepu Medical's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favour of Occlutech. The CoA held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that the appeal would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect. Lepu's claim that enforcing the injunction would damage its reputation was insufficient to outweigh Occlutech's interest in preventing imminent patent infringement.
- 2025-10-20UPC_CFI_189/2024Paris CDPatent amendedDecision of the Paris Central Division (Paris Seat) dated 20 October 2025 in the revocation action by Meril entities against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and the counterclaim for infringement by Edwards regarding EP 4 151 181 B1 (prosthetic heart valve technology). The revocation action was rejected; however, the patent was maintained only in the form of Auxiliary Request 2 (amended). The infringement counterclaim was granted: Meril entities were found to infringe claims 1, 4, 6–12 as amended. Edwards was granted an injunction preventing Meril from all infringing acts with products according to those claims in Contracting Member States, with an exception for XL-size valves (exceeding 30 mm) which was denied on proportionality grounds. Meril was ordered to provide information on infringing products, recall and destroy infringing products, and publish the decision in five media. Damages are to be determined in separate proceedings. Costs of the counterclaim were borne by Meril jointly and severally; costs of the revocation action were shared (each party bears own costs given the patent amendment dynamic).
- 2025-07-21UPC_CFI_8/2023Nordic-Baltic RDSettledThe court confirmed a settlement agreement between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and the Meril defendants (Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, SMIS International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB) in the infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation concerning EP 2 628 464. Both the infringement action and counterclaims for revocation were settled and confirmed by decision. The court also ordered partial reimbursement of court fees.