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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
67%patentees prevail on the merits
3 merits decisions; 1 inconclusive case excluded (small sample)
2 won · 1 lost · ↑ 50.0pp vs. prior 12 months
Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
- 2025: 66.7% (2/3)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
- Mannheim LD67%(n=3)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 1 loss…
100%
Patent invalidated — 1 (100%)No infringement found — 0 (0%)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
100%
1 infringed · 0 not infringed
Revocation rate
—
0 revoked / partially · 0 maintained / amended
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Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.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.
- Infringement3
- Revocation1
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
- Mannheim LD4 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 100%Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2025-09-12CC_65106/2024Mannheim LDInfringedDecision of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement of EP 2 223 589 by Windhager GmbH (defendant 1) in Germany, Austria and Luxembourg, ordering an injunction, recall, removal from distribution channels, destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and a declaration of damages liability. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed. Defendants bear costs. The decision establishes that supplying or offering all components of a patented product designed to be assembled without additional items at the point of use constitutes direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA, and that selling even a single component of such a product when assembly is indicated also constitutes direct infringement.
- 2025-04-02ACT_579338/2023Mannheim LDInfringedThe Mannheim Local Division found that the Kodak defendants infringed EP 3 511 174 B1 owned by FUJIFILM Corporation, ordered an injunction, recall and destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and an interim award of EUR 300,000 toward legal costs; the defendants' counterclaim for revocation was dismissed.
- 2025-04-02ACT_578818/2023Mannheim LDRevokedThe Mannheim Local Division fully revoked European patent EP 3 476 616 in Germany and dismissed the infringement action brought by FUJIFILM against Kodak entities. The application to amend the patent was also dismissed. The court held that the patent was entirely invalid due to lack of novelty/inventive step in the German territory. No injunction was granted. Claimant was ordered to pay EUR 300,000 as interim award on legal costs. The value in dispute was set at EUR 15,000,000.
- 2025-03-11ACT_17365/2024Mannheim LDProcedural onlyMannheim Local Division procedural order in infringement proceedings by Hurom Co., Ltd. against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. concerning EP 2 028 981. Following the ECJ's decision in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) on international jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation, the panel ordered separation of proceedings: a partial decision will be issued on national parts for which jurisdiction is established, while the question of jurisdiction over non-EU defendants is separated for further consideration after the parties can comment on the ECJ ruling. No substantive infringement decision issued.