UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions0Judges5Parties1Firms
Filing trendsOutcomesPendencyTechnologyForum strategyLeading casesLegal issuesSecurity for costs

Outcome base rates

What's normal — PI grant rate, infringement rate, revocation rate, settlement rate. Honest denominators using motion type.

Legal principleCosts apportionment where each party succeeds on one claimClear all
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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.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 (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.
  • The Hague LD
    0%
    (n=1)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 1 loss…
100%
Patent invalidated — 0 (0%)No infringement found — 1 (100%)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
0%
0 infringed · 1 not infringed
Revocation rate
—
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
0% 0 / 1
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.
  • Infringement1
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
  • The Hague LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 0%Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
  • 2025-08-29ACT_44624/2024Not infringedThe Local Division The Hague found that Maars' Horizon Products did not infringe City Glass's expired EP 1 651 838 (glazing system patent) because a key feature of the sole claim (feature 1.6 – self-locking mechanism) was not met; the revocation counterclaim was dismissed as the patent was held valid. Costs were agreed between the parties.