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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.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
2 merits decisions; 10 inconclusive cases excluded (small sample)
0 won · 2 lost · Insufficient prior-period data
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2025: 0% (0/1)
- 2026: 0% (0/1)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- The Hague LD0%(n=1)
- Munich LD0%(n=1)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 2 losses…
100%
Patent invalidated — 0 (0%)No infringement found — 2 (100%)
PI grant rate
33%
1 granted · 2 denied · 3 total decisions
PI grant rate (conservative)
33%
Granted / total PI decisions (incl. interim, withdrawn)
Infringement rate
0%
0 infringed · 1 not infringed
Revocation rate
—
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
33% 3 / 9
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When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.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.
- Infringement41
- Revocation25
- Provisional measures11
- Other5
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Munich LD17 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 0%Revocation rate: —
- The Hague LD16 casesPI grant rate: 0%Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Mannheim LD10 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Dusseldorf LD10 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Lisbon LD8 casesPI grant rate: 0%Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Hamburg LD8 casesPI grant rate: 100%Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Helsinki LD4 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Brussels LD4 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Nordic-Baltic RD3 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
- Paris LD2 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2026-02-18UPC_CFI_819/2024Mannheim LDWithdrawnThe Mannheim Local Division permitted Corning's partial withdrawal of its infringement action (EP 3 296 274) against defendants Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH and Hisense Europe Holding GmbH (defendants 1 and 2) under R. 265 RoP. The infringement action continues against TCL and LG (defendants 3–6). Simultaneously, the counterclaim for revocation filed by defendants 1 and 2 was also withdrawn and declared closed. Corning bears the costs of the withdrawn infringement proceedings against defendants 1–2; defendants 1–2 receive a 40% reimbursement (EUR 8,000) of their counterclaim court fees.
- 2026-01-13UPC_CFI_628/2024Munich LDNot infringedFinal decision on the merits in infringement action by Emboline, Inc. against AorticLab srl (EP 2 129 425, medical device). Court dismissed the infringement action finding the patent not infringed. The defendant's counterclaim for revocation was conditional (dependent on a finding of infringement), and since no infringement was found, no decision was made on the counterclaim. Both parties bear their own costs. Key headnotes: infringement not excluded by normal non-infringing operation if patent-compliant use remains possible; irregular use of a medical device in line with professional practice can constitute infringement; conditional counterclaim limited in scope (Rule 263.3 RoP).
- 2025-12-12UPC_CFI_525/2025Munich LDProcedural onlyOrder of the Munich Local Division granting a security for costs application (Rule 158 RoP) filed by OPPO, OnePlus, Realme and other defendants against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. (a claimant incorporated in Taiwan) in an infringement action. The Court found that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome given the absence of international agreements or national Taiwanese laws guaranteeing enforcement of foreign judgments, and ordered security in connection with the infringement action (but not the as-yet unfiled counterclaim for revocation).
- 2025-12-04UPC_CFI_806/2025Brussels LDProcedural onlyThe Brussels Local Division issued a final order under R. 19 RoP accepting Yealink's withdrawal of its preliminary objection to territorial competence, noting that the LD Brussels had already established its jurisdiction in the earlier PI proceedings between the same parties over EP 3 732 827.
- 2025-11-26UPC_CFI_806/2025Brussels LDProcedural onlyBrussels Local Division procedural order (R. 19 RoP, second order) in Barco v. Yealink infringement proceedings. Yealink raised a preliminary objection to territorial competence of the Brussels Local Division under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA. The Court had already held it had territorial competence in related PI proceedings (UPC_CFI_582/2024). Order sets out how the preliminary objection will be handled in the main infringement proceedings.
- 2025-11-17UPC_CFI_858/2025Lisbon LDProcedural onlyThe Lisbon Local Division (judge-rapporteur Rute Lopes) rejected Zentiva Portugal's preliminary objection challenging UPC jurisdiction over Boehringer Ingelheim's infringement action concerning EP 1 830 843 (nintedanib for treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis). The Court held that the action is an Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA infringement action based on an administrative notice (INFARMED No. 0689/2024) creating a threat of infringement, and UPC jurisdiction is properly established. Zentiva's additional argument (no demonstrated acts of manufacture etc.) was held to be a substantive merits defence outside the scope of R. 19 RoP.
- 2025-11-13UPC_CFI_321/2025The Hague LDWithdrawnThe Hague Local Division recorded the withdrawal of AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC's infringement action against Troy Chemical and Azelis entities concerning EP 3 286 270, with 60% of court fees reimbursed (€96,600) and certain documents declared confidential pursuant to R. 262.2 RoP.
- 2025-11-13UPC_CFI_321/2025The Hague LDWithdrawnDuplicate of the Hague Local Division decision recording AdvanSix's withdrawal of the infringement action against Troy Chemical and Azelis entities (EP 3 286 270), with 60% court fee reimbursement and confidentiality order.