UPC Analytics
ENDE
Analytics2,692Cases1,785Decisions257Judges1,851Parties459Firms
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.

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 Settled, withdrawn, and procedural-only outcomes excluded from the denominator.
50%patentees prevail on the merits

107 merits decisions; 206 inconclusive cases excluded

54 won · 53 lost · ↓ 38.3pp vs. prior 12 months

Win rate by year
Patentee win rate by year of first decision.
  • 2023: 42.9% (3/7)
  • 2024: 75% (18/24)
  • 2025: 44.8% (26/58)
  • 2026: 28.6% (2/7)
Win rate by division
Top divisions by merits-decision volume.
  • Paris CD
    62%
    (n=21)
  • Dusseldorf LD
    53%
    (n=19)
  • Mannheim LD
    50%
    (n=14)
  • The Hague LD
    50%
    (n=8)
  • Munich LD
    44%
    (n=16)
  • Paris LD
    43%
    (n=7)
  • Hamburg LD
    20%
    (n=5)
  • Munich CD
    17%
    (n=6)
When patentees lose, why?
Of 53 losses…
62%
38%
Patent invalidated — 33 (62%)No infringement found — 20 (38%)
PI grant rate
62%
32 granted · 20 denied · 55 total decisions
PI grant rate (conservative)
58%
Granted / total PI decisions (incl. interim, withdrawn)
Infringement rate
64%
30 infringed · 17 not infringed
Revocation rate
45%
14 revoked / partially · 17 maintained / amended
Settlement / withdrawal rate
Settled / withdrawn / dismissed as a share of all non-pending outcomes.
43% 152 / 352
Outcomes by category (detailed)
Stacked breakdown using sharper outcome enums — revocation cases split into revoked_full / revoked_partial / maintained_as_*, etc.
Settlement timing
When settled or withdrawn cases actually closed — relative to procedural milestones.
By technology sector
Top sectors by case count (filter scope applied).
By case category
How outcome rates differ across the six L2 buckets.
  • Infringement584
  • Appeals448
  • Revocation378
  • Other169
  • Provisional measures107
By division
PI grant rate · infringement rate · revocation rate per division (within scope).
  • Court of Appeal443 casesPI grant rate: 0%Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: —
  • Munich LD375 casesPI grant rate: 60%Infringement rate: 67%Revocation rate: 100%
  • Dusseldorf LD212 casesPI grant rate: 75%Infringement rate: 64%Revocation rate: 100%
  • Mannheim LD162 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 67%Revocation rate: —
  • Paris CD112 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: 30%
  • Hamburg LD89 casesPI grant rate: 60%Infringement rate: 25%Revocation rate: —
  • The Hague LD77 casesPI grant rate: 50%Infringement rate: 60%Revocation rate: —
  • Paris LD58 casesPI grant rate: 0%Infringement rate: 60%Revocation rate: —
  • Milan LD47 casesPI grant rate: 83%Infringement rate: 100%Revocation rate: —
  • Milan CD28 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 100%Revocation rate: 0%
  • Nordic-Baltic RD22 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: 100%Revocation rate: —
  • Munich CD21 casesPI grant rate: —Infringement rate: —Revocation rate: 83%
Recent decisions
Most recent decisions in scope.
  • —UPC_CFI_254/2025Procedural onlyProcedural order granting confidentiality request (Rule 262A RoP) filed by Defendant MediaTek Germany GmbH in respect of information in its Statement of Defence (Non-Technical Part), including exclusion of the public from hearings and redaction of the decision for publication. Claimant Huawei confirmed the underlying non-disclosure agreement and did not oppose the request.
  • —UPC_CFI_59/2025Costs onlyThe Munich Local Division ruled that the anti-anti-suit injunction application by Dolby International against Roku became moot after Roku voluntarily withdrew its US proceedings, declaring the application for provisional measures groundless and the earlier interim order void, with costs awarded against Roku.
  • —UPC_CFI_755/2024PI grantedThe Munich Local Division granted Avago Technologies an anti-suit/anti-enforcement injunction preventing Realtek Semiconductor from pursuing an anti-enforcement injunction in US proceedings that would block Avago from enforcing EP 1 770 912 before UPC courts, holding the UPC has jurisdiction for such provisional measures under Art. 32(1)(a)(c) UPCA.
  • 2026-03-26UPC_CFI_364/2025SettledDecision of the Paris Central Division dated 26 March 2026 declaring the counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) closed following an out-of-court settlement between Belparts Group N.V. and IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH. This is the counterpart order to UPC_CFI_104/2025: the counterclaim for infringement by Belparts was withdrawn simultaneously with IMI's withdrawal of its revocation action following settlement. No cost decision was requested.
  • 2026-03-26UPC_CFI_104/2025SettledDecision of the Paris Central Division dated 26 March 2026 declaring the revocation action (UPC_CFI_104/2025) and the counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) closed following an out-of-court settlement between IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH and Belparts Group N.V. IMI had commenced revocation proceedings in February 2025; Belparts had filed a counterclaim for infringement in April 2025. After the EPO Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 27 November 2025 and upheld the patent in amended form, the parties agreed to settle on 4 February 2026, requesting a stay. On 13 March 2026, Belparts withdrew the counterclaim for infringement and IMI withdrew the revocation action. No cost decision was requested.
  • 2026-03-25UPC_CoA_528/2024WithdrawnSanofi and Regeneron withdrew their application for rehearing (R.245 RoP) concerning the Court of Appeal's decision of 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024) which had rejected the revocation of EP 3 666 797 and set aside the Central Division Munich's first-instance decision. The application for withdrawal was permitted. The decision covers both UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024. Court fees were to be reimbursed accordingly.
  • 2026-03-24UPC_CoA_44/2026Procedural onlyOrder of the Court of Appeal (single judge) on an application for suspensive effect (Rule 223 RoP) filed by ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH in its appeal against a Düsseldorf Local Division decision largely upholding CUP&CINO's infringement claim for EP 3 398 487 (milk frother). The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility and merits of the suspensive effect application. The underlying first-instance decision had found infringement of EP 3 398 487 and rejected the revocation counterclaim. No final ruling on suspensive effect is visible from the excerpt; the order concerns procedural steps and assessment of the application.
  • 2026-03-24UPC_CoA_935/2025Procedural onlyCourt of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect of an appeal against a default judgment of The Hague Local Division. The Court held that an application for suspensive effect must set out all reasons, facts, evidence and arguments at once; a second application is inadmissible unless new submissions could not reasonably have been made earlier.