UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases1Decisions4Judges2Parties0Firms
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 principlenumber of validity arguments in PI proceedings limited to best three from respondent's perspectiveClear 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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.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
100%
1 granted · 0 denied · 1 total decisions
PI grant rate (conservative)
100%
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 interim, withdrawn)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Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.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: 100%Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
  • 2024-08-27ACT_23636/2024PI grantedMunich Local Division granted a preliminary injunction (inter partes) against respondents ordering them to cease and desist from manufacturing, offering, placing on the market, using, exporting or possessing a herbicide composition (Kagura) infringing a patent with claims directed to a composition, across multiple UPC contracting states. The court held that for a product composition claim the applicant need only allege and prove the composition had all features of the claim; it is not required to explain why the composition had those features. Distributing infringing products outside contracting states while advertising under the same name inside creates a risk of first infringement. An actus contrarius is insufficient to eliminate such risk; a cease-and-desist declaration with penalty clause is required. Respondents may revoke the injunction if applicant does not commence main proceedings within 31 calendar days.