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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.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; 6 inconclusive cases excluded (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 CD0%(n=1)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 1 loss…
100%
Patent invalidated — 1 (100%)No infringement found — 0 (0%)
PI grant rate
50%
1 granted · 1 denied · 2 total decisions
PI grant rate (conservative)
50%
Granted / total PI decisions (incl. interim, withdrawn)
Infringement rate
—
0 infringed · 0 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Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
57% 4 / 7
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Revocation13
- Infringement7
- Provisional measures3
- Other2
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Paris CD15 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: 100%
- Dusseldorf LD3 casesPI grant rate: 50%Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Paris LD3 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Mannheim LD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Copenhagen LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Brussels LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2026-03-26UPC_CFI_364/2025Paris CDSettledDecision of the Paris Central Division dated 26 March 2026 declaring the counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) closed following an out-of-court settlement between Belparts Group N.V. and IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH. This is the counterpart order to UPC_CFI_104/2025: the counterclaim for infringement by Belparts was withdrawn simultaneously with IMI's withdrawal of its revocation action following settlement. No cost decision was requested.
- 2026-03-26UPC_CFI_104/2025Paris CDSettledDecision of the Paris Central Division dated 26 March 2026 declaring the revocation action (UPC_CFI_104/2025) and the counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) closed following an out-of-court settlement between IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH and Belparts Group N.V. IMI had commenced revocation proceedings in February 2025; Belparts had filed a counterclaim for infringement in April 2025. After the EPO Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 27 November 2025 and upheld the patent in amended form, the parties agreed to settle on 4 February 2026, requesting a stay. On 13 March 2026, Belparts withdrew the counterclaim for infringement and IMI withdrew the revocation action. No cost decision was requested.
- 2026-02-12UPC_CFI_723/2025Dusseldorf LDPI grantedDüsseldorf Local Division granted provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against Angelalign defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 for infringement of EP 4 346 690 B1 (dental aligner technology), with penalty payments of up to EUR 10,000 per infringing product or EUR 20,000 per day for continuing infringement, and provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 400,000. The application against defendant 3 (Angelalign Technology Inc., Cayman Islands holding company) was rejected as no actions beyond typical shareholder role were alleged.
- 2026-02-12UPC_CFI_575/2025Mannheim LDDismissedThe Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection filed by all seven defendants (led by Sovex Systems and Solvest entities) in Honeywell's infringement action concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The Court retained jurisdiction over the Dutch defendants under Art. 33(1) UPCA and rejected the defendants' arguments challenging international jurisdiction over Hemtech (Bosnia and Herzegovina) under Art. 31 UPCA and Art. 71b Brussels I Recast. The Court found Honeywell had sufficiently asserted German-directed infringing acts at the pleadings stage, without needing to pre-judge the merits. Leave to appeal the rejection was not granted by the judge-rapporteur.
- 2025-12-29UPC_CFI_723/2025Dusseldorf LDPI deniedThe Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against Angelalign entities concerning dental aligner patent EP 4 346 690, and addressed a request for leave to appeal the order.
- 2025-12-18UPC_CFI_104/2025Paris CDProcedural onlyThe Central Division Paris issued a procedural order following the interim conference of 11 December 2025 in proceedings between IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH (revocation action) and Belparts Group N.V. (patent proprietor and counterclaim for infringement). The order addresses IMI's request for security for costs of EUR 500,000. The Court applied the test from the CoA decision in Chint v Jingao (July 2025): security requires a legitimate and real concern about recoverability of costs. As Belparts is seated in Belgium (EU member state), IMI had not demonstrated enforcement difficulties, and the security request appears to have been denied. The full dispositif was not captured in the available text extract.
- 2025-12-04UPC_CFI_415/2025Brussels LDCosts onlyThe Brussels Local Division issued a cost decision following withdrawal of CooperSurgical's infringement action against Motiva/Establishment Labs distributors, awarding costs to the defendants including EUR 5,757.90 to Defendants 1-2 and EUR 75,836.60 to Defendant 3, applying an ex ante proportionality assessment with an implied ceiling of EUR 100,000.
- 2025-11-06UPC_CFI_723/2025Dusseldorf LDProcedural onlyDüsseldorf Local Division procedural order in Align Technology's application for provisional measures against Angelalign. The order addresses Angelalign's request for security for costs under R. 158.1 RoP based on Align Technology's US domicile and assesses whether enforcement of a cost order would be unduly burdensome. This order was issued before the final provisional measures order of 12 February 2026.