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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
40%patentees prevail on the merits
5 merits decisions; 6 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
2 won · 3 lost · ↓ 100.0pp vs. prior 12 months
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2023: 0% (0/1)
- 2024: 100% (2/2)
- 2025: 0% (0/2)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Mannheim LD100%(n=2)
- Munich LD0%(n=3)
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
50%
1 infringed · 1 not infringed
Revocation rate
100%
1 revoked / partially · 0 maintained / amended
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
30% 3 / 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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Infringement16
- Appeals12
- Revocation7
- Other3
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Mannheim LD15 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 100%Revocation rate: —
- Court of Appeal12 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Munich LD11 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 0%Revocation rate: 100%
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2026-01-13UPC_CFI_850/2024Mannheim LDProcedural onlyThe Mannheim Local Division issued a further procedural order in ZTE v. Samsung addressing Samsung's request to produce a licence agreement, granting confidentiality protection under R. 262A RoP and permitting Samsung to file a further pleading on FRAND topics under R. 36 RoP.
- 2025-12-23UPC_CFI_850/2024Mannheim LDProcedural onlyThe Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order in ZTE v. Samsung proceedings addressing Samsung's request to produce a licence agreement and requests for further written pleadings under R. 36/263 RoP on FRAND defence, as well as scheduling of an interim conference.
- 2025-11-27UPC_CoA_70/2025Court of AppealWithdrawnCourt of Appeal accepted withdrawal of STRABAG's appeal (UPC_CoA_70/2025) following an out-of-court settlement between STRABAG and SWARCO. The intervenor Chainzone's separate appeal (PC_CoA_001/2025) was declared moot under R.360 RoP, as an intervenor cannot continue an appeal that the supported party has withdrawn. Chainzone bears its own costs.
- 2025-11-18UPC_CFI_804/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyOrder of the President of the Court of First Instance granting TP-Link's application under R.323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that only one of the seven defendants is based in Germany, that the relevant technology field predominantly uses English, and that the need for internal coordination and technical support among defendants justified the change on grounds of fairness under Art.49(5) UPCA.
- 2025-10-10UPC_CFI_688/2024Munich LDRevokedThe same Munich Local Division decision as UPC_CFI_303/2024, in the associated counterclaim proceedings: EP 3 972 309 revoked for added matter and infringement action dismissed.
- 2025-10-10UPC_CFI_303/2024Munich LDRevokedThe Munich Local Division revoked Motorola Mobility LLC's EP 3 972 309 (telecommunications patent) in full after finding added matter beyond the parent application, and dismissed the infringement action against ASUSTek, ASUS Computer GmbH and ASUSTEK (UK); costs borne by claimant Motorola.
- 2025-08-01UPC_CoA_70/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyCourt of Appeal ruled on confidentiality and access restriction requests in the STRABAG vs. SWARCO appeal proceedings. The Court clarified that access and use restrictions for information against a party and its representatives can only be ordered under R.262A RoP. A late application in appeal for restrictions on information filed in first-instance proceedings is inadmissible. The Court imposed confidentiality obligations on Swarco regarding Chainzone's product characteristics.
- 2025-07-15UPC_CFI_302/2024Munich LDProcedural onlyProcedural order scheduling an additional interim hearing on the topic of FRAND licensing on 21 July 2025, to be held in person in English, in camera (non-public), in the parallel case UPC_CFI_302/2024 and UPC_CFI_667/2024 (Lenovo v. ASUSTek).