UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics1Cases2Decisions1Judges3Parties2Firms
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 principlethird-party and public interests considered in scope of corrective measures under Art. 64(4) UPCAClear 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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
100%patentees prevail on the merits

1 merits decision (small sample)

1 won · 0 lost · Insufficient prior-period data

Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
  • 2024: 100% (1/1)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
  • Munich LD
    100%
    (n=1)
PI grant rate
—
PI grant rate (conservative)
—
Infringement rate
100%
1 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Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.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).
  • Munich LD1 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 100%Revocation rate: —
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
  • 2024-11-15ACT_459987/2023InfringedMunich Local Division full merits decision finding that Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd and Meril GmbH infringed Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's patent EP 3 646 825 (a heart valve technology patent). The court ordered a permanent injunction to cease and desist from the infringing acts (transcatheter heart valve products) across all UPC contracting states where the patent has effect, recall of infringing products from commercial channels (excluding devices already scheduled for patient implantation by 15 November 2024), destruction of infringing stock, disclosure of information about distribution and quantities, publication of the decision, and an obligation to pay damages (quantum to be determined separately). The defendant's counterclaim for revocation was dismissed, the patent being upheld as valid. Costs were addressed separately.
  • 2024-09-06ACT_459987/2023Procedural onlyThe Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur issued a procedural order in Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril concerning EP 3 646 825, addressing defendants' arguments that the Central Division Paris first-instance decision on the patent amendment application had failed to consider key invalidity arguments. The judge-rapporteur referred the matter to the full panel, noting that the appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal would address the alleged deficiencies in the Paris decision.