Outcome base rates
What's normal — PI grant rate, infringement rate, revocation rate, settlement rate. Honest denominators using motion type.
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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.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.
- Dusseldorf LD0%(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Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.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).
- Dusseldorf LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 0%Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
- 2025-03-07ACT_590302/2023Dusseldorf LDNot infringedDüsseldorf Local Division full merits judgment in an infringement action by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG against CUPOWER entities concerning EP 2 011 218 B1 (a patent relating to LED driver/control circuits). The court dismissed the infringement action in its entirety, finding that the accused LED power supply products do not fulfil feature 7.4 of the patent (decoupling element) because the capacitor C3 in the defendants' design does not achieve the complete electrical separation required by the claim – it remains continuously connected to the control unit regardless of switch state. The defendants' counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed (patent maintained). Costs were split: claimant bears costs of the infringement action; defendants bear costs of the revocation counterclaim equally.