UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions4Judges3Parties4Firms
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 principledestruction as corrective measure; software deactivation insufficient unless re-enabling impossibleClear 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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.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Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.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.
  • 2025-01-14ACT_2379/2024InfringedFinal decision in infringement action (with counterclaim for revocation) concerning an avalanche transceiver patent. The Düsseldorf Local Division found direct and indirect infringement by the Mammut defendants, granted an injunction, ordered recall and removal from distribution channels, ordered provision of accounts, and declared liability for damages (with EUR 3,000 preliminary damages awarded). The counterclaim for revocation was dismissed. Costs were split: claimant to bear 80%, each defendant 10% of infringement action costs; defendants to bear costs of revocation counterclaim.