UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions4Judges10Parties0Firms
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 principlefeature-by-feature infringement analysisClear 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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.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.
  • Hamburg 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Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.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).
  • Hamburg LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 0%Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
  • 2025-04-30ACT_561734/2023Not infringedThe Hamburg Local Division dismissed AGFA NV's infringement action against Gucci entities finding that the accused leather goods did not infringe EP 3 170 670 (a patent concerning inkjet-decorated leather), specifically because the ivory-coloured base coat did not constitute a perfect achromatic colour as required by the patent claims; it also dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for revocation.