UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions3Judges2Parties0Firms
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 principleimminent infringement must arise directly from conduct of potential infringerClear 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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.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 interim, withdrawn)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Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.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).
  • Lisbon LD1 casesPI grant rate: 0%Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
  • 2025-05-08ACT_3186/2025PI deniedLisbon Local Division denied Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH's application for a preliminary injunction against Zentiva Portugal, LDA concerning EP 1 830 843 (nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis). The court found no imminent infringement: Zentiva's receipt of marketing authorisations and filing of a parallel exclusivity period (PEP) request did not demonstrate that market entry was imminent before patent expiry. The PEP request was filed in the usual course of business and the Defendant was aware of the risk of PEP expiry. Value of case set at EUR 1,000,000.