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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
60%patentees prevail on the merits
5 merits decisions; 1 inconclusive case excluded (small sample)
3 won · 2 lost · ↓ 100.0pp vs. prior 12 months
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2024: 100% (2/2)
- 2025: 50% (1/2)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Paris CD60%(n=5)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 2 losses…
100%
Patent invalidated — 2 (100%)No infringement found — 0 (0%)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
—
Revocation rate
0%
0 revoked / partially · 3 maintained / amended
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
0% 0 / 4
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.
- Revocation15
- Other5
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Paris CD20 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: 0%
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2025-05-21UPC_CFI_230/2024Paris CDProcedural onlyThe Central Division Paris issued a rectification order correcting a clerical error in the April 2025 decision that revoked EP 1 994 067 B1 in the Kinexon v Ballinno revocation action, correcting the patent number reference from EP 1 994 067 to EP 1 944 067.
- 2025-02-28UPC_CFI_312/2023Paris CDPatent amendedDecision on the revocation action by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International Inc. concerning EP 3 504 989 (vaping/e-cigarette device). The court maintained the patent in amended form (Auxiliary Request 1, filed 22 July 2024) with effect for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. The patent as granted was found invalid. Each party bears its own costs since both parties partially succeeded.
- 2025-01-17UPC_CFI_316/2023Paris CDRevokedThe Paris Central Division (Seat, Panel 1) revoked European patent EP 3 430 921 B1 in its entirety, with effect for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. The claimant NJOY Netherlands B.V. succeeded in demonstrating that granted claim 1 lacked clarity/added matter, and the defendant Juul Labs International Inc.'s twelve auxiliary requests were all found unallowable. A thirteenth conditional auxiliary request (2d) was rejected as unreasonably numerous and unclear. Juul Labs was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
- 2024-11-05ACT_571801/2023Paris CDPatent maintainedParis Central Division (Section 1) dismissed NJOY's revocation action against EP 3 504 991 B1 (Juul Labs - vaping device cartridge). The Court found the patent valid, holding that novelty and inventive step requirements were met. NJOY as the unsuccessful party was ordered to bear Juul Labs' costs.
- 2024-07-29ACT_555899/2023Paris CDPatent amendedThe Paris Central Division rejected the revocation action filed by BITZER Electronics A/S against EP 3 414 708 (claim 1), maintaining claim 1 as amended by auxiliary request II submitted during the proceedings; costs were borne 60% by the claimant and 40% by the defendant.
- 2024-04-05UPC_CFI_263/2023Paris CDProcedural onlyThe judge-rapporteur issued an interim conference order setting out procedural directions for the revocation action concerning EP 3 414 708, including discussion of the validity of the priority claim and allowable form of amendments; no substantive ruling on patentability was made.
- 2024-01-08UPC_CFI_263/2023Paris CDProcedural onlyThe Paris Central Division rejected Carrier Corporation's application to stay the revocation proceedings against EP3414708 pending EPO opposition proceedings, finding that the requirement of a 'rapid decision' from the EPO was not fulfilled because no concrete timeline for the EPO ruling had been established.