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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
100%patentees prevail on the merits
2 merits decisions; 3 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
2 won · 0 lost · Flat vs. prior 12 months
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2024: 100% (1/1)
- 2025: 100% (1/1)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Dusseldorf LD100%(n=1)
- Paris CD100%(n=1)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
—
Revocation rate
0%
0 revoked / partially · 1 maintained / amended
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
40% 2 / 5
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Infringement9
- Revocation9
- Appeals6
- Other3
- Provisional measures1
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Munich LD9 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Court of Appeal6 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Dusseldorf LD5 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Paris CD5 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: 0%
- Munich CD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Milan CD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Mannheim LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2026-03-11UPC_CoA_934/2025Court of AppealSettledCourt of Appeal accepted the withdrawal of the application for provisional measures following an out-of-court settlement between the parties. The Düsseldorf Local Division had previously granted provisional measures to Roche against Menarini entities. Following settlement, the proceedings were declared terminated. Each party bears its own costs.
- 2026-03-04UPC_CoA_678/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Emmanuel Gougé) granted Hurom Co., Ltd.'s application for further exchanges of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) in the appeal against the Paris Local Division's decision of 23 May 2025 dismissing Hurom's infringement claims and revoking several claims of EP 3 155 936. The CoA allowed further pleadings because Hurom had introduced two new auxiliary requests on appeal (not filed at first instance) and NUC had responded with new prior art documents (D5, D6) and invalidity arguments that Hurom had not yet had an opportunity to address. The principles of due process and the right to be heard justified the further exchange.
- 2026-01-15UPC_CFI_480/2025Milan CDProcedural onlyThe Milan Central Division (full panel: Postiglione, Klein, Roselinger) rejected Fisher & Paykel's request to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A as subsequent amendments to the patent (EP 4 185 356) in the revocation proceedings. The Court held that under R. 50.2 and R. 30.2 RoP, subsequent amendments are only allowed on an exceptional basis; the preclusive nature of the front-loaded system means that amendments must be made in full at the earliest stage. The efficiency of proceedings is not a sufficient reason to allow subsequent piecemeal amendments.
- 2026-01-15UPC_CFI_480/2025Milan CDProcedural onlyDuplicate/version of the above order (same date and case) from the Milan Central Division rejecting Fisher & Paykel's request to introduce subsequent auxiliary requests 2A–13A for patent EP 4 185 356 in the revocation action brought by Fisher & Paykel against Flexicare. The reasoning and outcome are identical to the companion order.
- 2025-12-10UPC_CFI_316/2024Dusseldorf LDInfringedThe Düsseldorf Local Division found indirect infringement of EP 2 061 575 B1 by Altech Makina and granted an injunction with removal from channels of commerce, while dismissing the revocation counterclaim; the infringement action was otherwise dismissed in part, with claimant bearing 30% and defendant 70% of costs.
- 2025-10-14UPC_CFI_807/2024Dusseldorf LDProcedural onlyThe panel dismissed the defendants' application for review of a case management order (R. 333 RoP) concerning an auxiliary request for claim amendment in a stroller swivel-locking device infringement action. The judge-rapporteur's procedural order was confirmed.
- 2025-03-26UPC_CoA_290/2024Court of AppealCosts onlyThe Court of Appeal dismissed Stäubli's appeal against the Paris Central Division's cost order in a revocation action in which the patent holders surrendered their patent after proceedings commenced. The Court upheld an equitable exception to the general rule (Art. 69(1) UPCA) that the unsuccessful party bears costs: where a claimant files a revocation action without the patent holder giving cause, and the patent holder surrenders the patent immediately at the outset and concurrently files a revocation request with the EPO under Art. 105a EPC, the claimant may bear the costs. The Court applied equity because the patent holders had announced timely surrender and completed formalities only 8 days late without causing extra costs.
- 2024-12-26UPC_CFI_338/2023Paris CDPatent amendedThe Paris Central Division dismissed Advanced Bionics' revocation actions (main and counterclaims) against MED-EL's EP 4 074 373 B1 (MRI-safe disk magnet for cochlear implants), maintaining the patent in the amended version of Auxiliary Request 0a after overcoming added-matter objections; costs were allocated 70% to the claimants and 30% to the defendant.