UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions4Judges2Parties1Firms
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 principleDefendant must show due diligence and absence of undue prejudice to admit late invalidity attacksClear 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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
100%patentees prevail on the merits

1 merits decision (small sample)

1 won · 0 lost · Insufficient prior-period data

Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
  • 2025: 100% (1/1)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
  • Dusseldorf LD
    100%
    (n=1)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
100%
1 infringed · 0 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Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.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).
  • Dusseldorf LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 100%Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
  • 2025-05-08ACT_2097/2024InfringedDüsseldorf Local Division final decision in infringement action (with revocation counterclaim) concerning a pump patent (EP 2 778 423 B1), by Grundfos against a Chinese manufacturer (Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump). The court found infringement, granted an injunction, ordered accounting/information, recall from distribution channels, and declared liability for damages from 28 February 2018. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed. Defendant bears all costs. The court addressed the admissibility of new prior art raised for the first time in the defendant's rejoinder to the revocation counterclaim, holding that such new attacks require a convincing explanation of why they could not have been included earlier.