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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.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
1 merits decision (small sample)
0 won · 1 lost · Insufficient prior-period data
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2025: 0% (0/1)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Paris LD0%(n=1)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 1 loss…
100%
Patent invalidated — 1 (100%)No infringement found — 0 (0%)
PI grant rate
0%
0 granted · 2 denied · 2 total decisions
PI grant rate (conservative)
0%
Granted / total PI decisions (incl. interim, withdrawn)
Infringement rate
—
0 infringed · 0 not infringed
Revocation rate
—
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
0% 0 / 3
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.
- Appeals7
- Infringement3
- Provisional measures2
- Other2
- Revocation2
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Court of Appeal7 casesPI grant rate: 0%Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Hamburg LD5 casesPI grant rate: 0%Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Paris LD4 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2026-01-26UPC_CoA_917/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal issued an order on Merz Pharmaceuticals' request under R. 262.2 RoP to keep certain information (including Exhibit 823) confidential in the Merz v. Viatris Santé proceedings. The Court reiterated that R. 262.2 RoP requests are addressed to future public access requests, not to the other party. Protection against the other party's use of confidential information requires a R. 262A RoP confidentiality order. The Court declined to issue a decision on the R. 262.2 request at this stage pending any public access application.
- 2025-11-07UPC_CoA_579/2025Court of AppealPI deniedCourt of Appeal allowed OTEC's appeal and set aside the first-instance order granting provisional measures to STEROS. The CoA found the appeal successful and ordered that STEROS's application for provisional measures be rejected. STEROS was ordered to bear the costs of both the first-instance and appeal proceedings.
- 2025-11-07UPC_CoA_579/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal (Panel 1a: Grabinski, Gougé, Blok, Meewisse, Schmidt) partially granted STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.'s application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the Court of Appeal's order of 7 November 2025 which had set aside the Hamburg Local Division's provisional measures grant and rejected the application for provisional measures concerning EP 4 249 647. The court corrected a clerical mistake in margin 45 (Table 1 changed to Table 10), but rejected STEROS' further argument that margin 43 contained an 'obvious slip' since the proposed change would affect the substance of the reasoning.
- 2025-05-23ACT_17434/2024Paris LDRevokedParis Local Division revoked the Dutch, French, German and Italian parts of claims 1-6 of EP 3 155 936 (Hurom slow juicer) as unconditionally amended in the Main Request, and claims 1-3 as amended in the Auxiliary Request, following NUC Electronics' counterclaim for revocation. The patent was found invalid under Art. 138(1) EPC. All of Hurom's infringement claims were dismissed. Hurom's claims for infringement in Poland were held admissible (BSH v Electrolux principle) but dismissed on the merits for lack of evidence. Hurom was ordered to bear all costs.
- 2025-02-21ACT_61342/2024Hamburg LDPI deniedThe Hamburg Local Division dismissed Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC's application for provisional measures against Speed Care Mineral GmbH regarding hemostatic wound-care products, because Teleflex failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiment contained a 'binder' as required by the patent claims, and the burden of proof was not reversed.