UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases2Decisions3Judges2Parties2Firms
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 principleanti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) and anti-anti-enforcement injunction (AAEI) in UPC proceedingsClear 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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.

No merits decisions in the current scope.

PI grant rate
0%
0 granted · 1 denied · 1 total decisions
PI grant rate (conservative)
0%
Granted / total PI decisions (incl. interim, withdrawn)
Infringement rate
—
Revocation rate
—
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
0% 0 / 1
By technology sector
Top sectors by case count (filter scope applied).
By case category
How outcome rates differ across the six L2 buckets.
  • Provisional measures1
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
  • Munich LD1 casesPI grant rate: 0%Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
  • —UPC_CFI_59/2025Costs onlyThe Munich Local Division ruled that the anti-anti-suit injunction application by Dolby International against Roku became moot after Roku voluntarily withdrew its US proceedings, declaring the application for provisional measures groundless and the earlier interim order void, with costs awarded against Roku.
  • 2025-05-19UPC_CFI_59/2025PI deniedThe Munich Local Division found the application for provisional measures by Sun Patent Trust (anti-anti-suit injunction / anti-anti-enforcement injunction against Roku) moot because Roku had already issued a cease-and-desist undertaking after the prior interim order of 28 January 2025; the application was rejected but costs were borne by Roku since it had given cause for the proceedings.