UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases3Decisions1Judges2Parties2Firms
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 principleinternational jurisdiction examined of own motion where required by Union lawClear 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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.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.
  • 2024: 0% (0/1)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
  • Munich CD
    0%
    (n=1)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 1 loss…
100%
Patent invalidated — 1 (100%)No infringement found — 0 (0%)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
—
Revocation rate
100%
1 revoked / partially · 0 maintained / amended
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Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.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.
  • Revocation1
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
  • Munich CD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: 100%
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
  • 2024-10-17ACT_551180/2023RevokedThe Munich Section of the Central Division revoked European Patent EP 2 794 928 B1 (owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College) in its entirety, with effect in France, Germany, and the Netherlands, in a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited. The Court found that the main claim lacked novelty over the prior art disclosure 'Göransson', and that all eight auxiliary requests (AR1–8) also lacked inventive step over Göransson. Harvard's auxiliary requests to amend the patent were all rejected. Harvard as the unsuccessful party must bear NanoString's legal costs.
  • 2024-01-31ACT_551180/2023Procedural onlyThe Munich Central Division judge-rapporteur issued an interim conference order (R. 103/105.5 RoP) in the revocation action by NanoString Technologies Europe against Harvard concerning EP 2 794 928. The order recorded directions from the interim conference, including admission of document D46 with a response period for the defendant, and setting the value of proceedings at EUR 7,500,000.
  • 2024-01-31ACT_551180/2023Procedural onlyProcedural order from Munich Central Division (judge-rapporteur András Kupecz) following the interim conference in a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited against President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning EP 2 794 928. The order addresses admissibility of document D46 (filed as prior art in the reply): the defendant withdrew its objection, D46 was admitted into proceedings, and the defendant was given six weeks to respond in writing. Further, the judge-rapporteur indicated the case value for cost purposes. No substantive ruling.