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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.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
3 merits decisions; 6 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
0 won · 3 lost · Insufficient prior-period data
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2025: 0% (0/2)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Dusseldorf LD0%(n=2)
- Munich LD0%(n=1)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 3 losses…
100%
Patent invalidated — 3 (100%)No infringement found — 0 (0%)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
—
0 infringed · 0 not infringed
Revocation rate
—
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
40% 4 / 10
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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
- Infringement15
- Revocation14
- Other4
- Provisional measures1
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Court of Appeal18 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Munich LD18 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Dusseldorf LD6 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Mannheim LD5 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Helsinki LD3 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Paris CD2 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.
- 2025-11-03UPC_CFI_662/2025Mannheim LDDismissedThe Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection (R.19 RoP) filed by multiple Geely group defendants challenging the jurisdiction and competence of the Mannheim Local Division. The Court found it had jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA over all defendants as they are members of the same corporate group, share business relations as required, and face the same infringement allegation regarding the same patent claim. The Court also established that the requirement of a 'business relationship' under Art.33(1)(b) UPCA does not require complete identity of infringing acts but merely that the accused acts are aligned in purpose. The infringement action on the merits continues.
- 2025-09-30UPC_CFI_320/2024Dusseldorf LDWithdrawnThe Düsseldorf Local Division recorded Samsung's withdrawal of their counterclaim for revocation and application for cost decision following the court's 30 July 2025 decision dismissing the Headwater infringement action and revoking EP 3 110 069, with each party to bear own costs.
- 2025-09-26UPC_CFI_26/2024Dusseldorf LDWithdrawnThe Düsseldorf Local Division recorded the withdrawal by Headwater Research LLC of its infringement action (EP 3 110 069) against Samsung Electronics entities after the court had issued a decision on 30 July 2025 dismissing the infringement action and revoking the patent; both parties to bear own costs.
- 2025-08-01UPC_CFI_54/2024Munich LDRevokedMunich Local Division found that European Patent 2 391 947 (Headwater, relating to Android device network management) is invalid in all forms including as amended. The panel cancelled the second oral hearing planned for September 2025, indicating the patent was found invalid both as granted and in all amended forms proposed by Headwater. The infringement action was therefore dismissed.
- 2025-07-30ACT_3932/2024Dusseldorf LDRevokedThe Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Headwater Research LLC's infringement action against Samsung and revoked European patent EP 3 110 069 B1 to the extent of claim 1, on the basis of a successful counterclaim for revocation; all costs were borne by the claimant. The court also rejected a new argument on added matter as inadmissible under R. 9.2 RoP.
- 2025-06-30UPC_CFI_181/2024Paris CDProcedural onlyProcedural order from the Paris Central Division (Seat) dated 30 June 2025 granting Acer Computer GmbH's application under R. 262.1(b) RoP for public access to written pleadings and evidence filed in proceedings concerning an application to amend patent EP 2 661 892 B1 (Nokia Technologies Oy vs HP Printing). The court found Acer had a specific interest in the validity of the patent given that Nokia had brought an infringement action against Acer based on the same patent. Access was granted without ongoing confidentiality obligations post-access.
- 2025-06-30UPC_CFI_181/2024Paris CDProcedural onlyProcedural order granting Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB (a third-party applicant) access to written pleadings and evidence filed in the proceedings, subject to a confidentiality obligation while proceedings are pending. The court held that public access may be granted before proceedings end and the court may impose conditions to protect the integrity of proceedings.