UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases2Decisions4Judges5Parties0Firms
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 principleprior art must be in same technical field or one skilled person would consult for the problem posedClear 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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.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 — 1 (100%)No infringement found — 0 (0%)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
—
0 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Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.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).
  • Hamburg LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
  • 2025-07-10ACT_19746/2024Partially revokedFinal decision from Hamburg Local Division in infringement action by Nera Innovations Ltd. against Xiaomi entities concerning EP 2 642 632 (wireless power receiver). The infringement claim was dismissed as the patent was found to be substantially invalid. The patent was revoked in its main claim form, but maintained in a limited amended form (auxiliary requests 1 and 2). The counterclaim for revocation beyond those auxiliary requests was also dismissed. Costs of the infringement action borne by claimant; costs of counterclaim split 20% claimant / 80% defendants. Case value set at EUR 3,750,000.
  • 2025-07-10ACT_19746/2024Procedural onlyHamburg Local Division correction order (R. 353 RoP) correcting several factual errors in its judgment of 10 July 2025 in the Nera Innovations v. Xiaomi infringement proceedings. The corrections related to the patent transfer history (incorrect description of LG Innotek transfer) and heading numbering errors.