Outcome base rates

No merits decisions in the current scope.

• Appeals30

• Court of Appeal30 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —

• 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.
• 2026-02-03UPC_CoA_8/2025Court of AppealSettledFollowing the conclusion of appeal proceedings and a settlement agreement between Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG and Bhagat Textile Engineers on payment of procedural costs (arising from the infringement judgment UPC_CFI_241/2023 and the appeal UPC_CoA_8/2025 decision of 9 December 2025), the Court of Appeal ordered the release and transfer to Oerlikon of the EUR 19,000 security deposit provided by Bhagat pursuant to the security for costs order of 30 October 2025. Bhagat consented to the transfer.
• 2026-02-03UPC_CoA_8/2025Court of AppealSettledItalian-language version of the Court of Appeal order (Emmanuel Gougé) ordering the release and transfer to Oerlikon of EUR 19,000 security deposit provided by Bhagat, following settlement of cost payment obligations in the infringement and appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 145 848. Identical substance to the English version.
• 2025-12-09UPC_CoA_12/2025Court of AppealoutcomeName.otherItalian-language version of the Court of Appeal decision (same case as UPC_CoA_8/2025) on damages and costs in the Bhagat v Oerlikon appeal (EP 2 145 848). The CoA confirmed Bhagat's negligent infringement, rejected Oerlikon's reputational damage claims, and upheld the 80/20 cost split from the first-instance proceedings.
• 2025-12-09UPC_CoA_8/2025Court of AppealoutcomeName.otherCourt of Appeal decision on damages and costs in appeal by Bhagat Textile Engineers against the first-instance infringement decision (EP 2 145 848). The CoA confirmed that Bhagat was at least negligent (Art. 68(1) UPCA) having exhibited the infringing product at ITMA 2023 without checking the patent landscape. Oerlikon's claims for moral/reputational prejudice were rejected as insufficiently substantiated. The CoA upheld the CFI's cost allocation (Bhagat to bear 80% of first-instance costs). The CoA determined the damages quantum.
• 2025-10-30UPC_CoA_8/2025Court of AppealCosts onlyThe Court of Appeal (Panel 1b: Grabinski, Gougé, Germano, Checcacci, Wilhelm) ordered Bhagat Textile Engineers to provide security for costs of EUR 19,000 (50% of the applicable ceiling) within 10 days in the appeal against the Milan Local Division's infringement judgment concerning EP 2 145 848. The court rejected Oerlikon's request for security regarding first-instance costs already awarded (as those are a matter of enforcement). Security was justified by Bhagat's financial difficulties, the non-enforceability of UPC orders in India, and Bhagat's explicit acknowledgment that it cannot pay the first-instance costs.
• 2025-10-30UPC_CoA_8/2025Court of AppealCosts onlyItalian-language version of the Court of Appeal order (Panel 1b) ordering Bhagat Textile Engineers to provide security for costs of EUR 19,000 in the appeal concerning EP 2 145 848. Identical substance to the English version: security ordered based on Bhagat's financial difficulties and non-enforceability of UPC orders in India. Request for security covering first-instance costs rejected.
• 2025-07-24UPC_CoA_24/2025Court of AppealSettledDecision of the Court of Appeal dated 24 July 2025 granting withdrawal of all proceedings in the appeal by HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (HPDC) and the cross-appeal by LAMA FRANCE, following an out-of-court settlement. The underlying Paris Local Division decision of 13 November 2024 had found EP 2 089 230 invalid and EP 1 737 669 infringed by LAMA. Both parties withdrew their appeals and the proceedings were declared closed. A 60% reimbursement of court fees before the Court of Appeal was ordered for both parties. No cost decision was required as both parties agreed.