Outcome base rates

No merits decisions in the current scope.

• Appeals25

• Court of Appeal25 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —

• 2026-03-24UPC_CoA_44/2026Court of AppealProcedural onlyOrder of the Court of Appeal (single judge) on an application for suspensive effect (Rule 223 RoP) filed by ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH in its appeal against a Düsseldorf Local Division decision largely upholding CUP&CINO's infringement claim for EP 3 398 487 (milk frother). The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility and merits of the suspensive effect application. The underlying first-instance decision had found infringement of EP 3 398 487 and rejected the revocation counterclaim. No final ruling on suspensive effect is visible from the excerpt; the order concerns procedural steps and assessment of the application.
• 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.
• 2026-03-10UPC_CoA_37/2026Court of AppealDismissedCourt of Appeal (standing judge) dismissed Angelalign's request for discretionary review under R.220.3 RoP against a procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division extending a deadline in provisional measures proceedings. The CoA found that no manifest error was demonstrated: the Local Division did not exceed its discretionary powers, correctly applied R.9.3(a) RoP, and properly exercised its discretion in allowing a late reply based on human error. The requirements for discretionary review were not met.
• 2026-02-18UPC_CoA_890/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders requiring Syntorr LP to provide security for costs in infringement proceedings against Arthrex regarding EP 2 670 898. Identical reasoning to UPC_CoA_889/2025: ATE insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement sufficient; security for costs dismissed; bank guarantee ordered released.
• 2026-02-18UPC_CoA_889/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal set aside the Munich Local Division's orders requiring Syntorr LP to provide security for costs (EUR 2,000,000) in infringement proceedings against Arthrex. The court found that the existence of an after-the-event (ATE) litigation insurance policy with an anti-avoidance endorsement adequately addressed concerns about enforceability of a costs order, and therefore security for costs should not have been ordered. The bank guarantee provided by Syntorr was ordered to be released.
• 2026-02-17UPC_CoA_937/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Bart van den Broek) rejected the bioMérieux companies' request to stay the UPC revocation appeal proceedings pending EPO opposition proceedings concerning EP 3 756 767. The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, holding that UPC and EPO decisions on patent validity are not irreconcilable and that EPO developments can be factored into the appeal later. The court also rejected the request for extension of the deadline for the Statement of Grounds of Appeal, finding more efficient means (such as hearing appeals together under R. 220.5 RoP) available.
• 2025-12-29UPC_CoA_936/2025Court of AppealProcedural onlyThe President of the Court of Appeal (Klaus Grabinski, Standing Judge) rejected Amazon's application for suspensive effect regarding the Mannheim Local Division's Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI) order of 22 December 2025, which confirmed an earlier order of 30 September 2025 prohibiting Amazon from pursuing or enforcing anti-suit injunctions against InterDigital's UPC patent enforcement actions. Amazon failed to demonstrate the order was 'manifestly erroneous', which is the threshold for suspensive effect under the UPC's case law.