UPC Statistics: 60% Success Rate Patentees, Rapid, and Further Key Insights

Number of cases filed each month on a steady rise

The UPC reports the number of cases filed each month, and when considering only standalone proceedings – excluding, for instance, counterclaims for invalidity or infringement – in total there have been 381 cases filed until 31 January 2025, of which 251 are infringement proceedings. This figure surpasses the initial expectations set by the UPC. To put this number in perspective, in 2022 (the last year before the UPC opened its doors), 775 “patent cases” were filed in Germany according to Juve Patent. However, it is not clear what exactly is considered a “patent case” in this context, so the numbers may not be completely comparable. Nevertheless, it should be clear that despite the strong start of the UPC, it has not yet reached the case numbers previously seen at the German local courts.

Examining the monthly filing trend, it is apparent that the UPC’s popularity is on a steady rise. During the first seven months of operation (June – December 2023), approximately 16 cases were filed per month on average. However, in the last three months, this average increased to about 23 cases per month. The graph below illustrates the monthly case filings along with the 3-month moving average, noting that the UPC began publishing monthly statistics from January 2024.

Looking ahead to 2025, we anticipate that the UPC’s popularity will continue to grow. An increasing number of decisions are being issued in main proceedings, offering greater clarity on issues where the UPCA or RoP previously lacked guidance, as well as on the UPC’s material application of the law. Significantly, the initial decisions addressing FRAND in detail may encourage SEP holders to resolve their disputes at the UPC.

While the number of pharmaceutical disputes at the UPC remains limited, we foresee growth in this sector in 2025. This is partly due to pharmaceutical companies’ interest in contributing to the development of case law at the UPC, which is currently dominated by companies in the tech / med-tech industry.

High success rate for patentees in main proceedings

UPC

For parties considering legal proceedings, the likelihood of success is crucial. Each case is unique, but as patent disputes are rarely fought in all jurisdictions, claimants generally take court statistics into account when deciding where to litigate.

In infringement proceedings on the merits, 21 decisions were made, with the UPC finding patent infringement in 57% of cases. In standalone revocations actions, 11 decisions were made, with the patent deemed valid as granted or in amended form in 64% of cases. Generally, only patents offering meaningful protection are defended, so we consider a partial upholding as a success for patentee. If you combine infringement and revocation proceedings on the merits, patentees are successful in almost 60% of them, whether claimant or defendant. Prior to the UPC, it was sometimes thought that the UPC would be particularly claimant-friendly, but these figures seem to suggest otherwise. Whether these figures indicate the UPC is patentee friendly, is more difficult to say. Patentees are not obliged to participate with their patents in the system, so it may be that only the strongest ones are in the system.

Comparison with the Netherlands and Germany

Although we do not have the exact same statistics for the same period, we can look at statistics from other countries to put these figures into perspective.

In the Netherlands in the period from 2022-2024, patentees were successful 32% of cases in main proceedings. In Germany, from 2006-2016, they won 64% of infringement cases in main proceedings, but validity wasn’t assessed. Including invalidity outcomes, 59% of patents were upheld, leading to a 38% success rate for patentees if one would combine these figures. This aligns Germany’s figures closer to the Netherlands and suggests patentees may fare better in the UPC than in Germany.

High success rate for patentees in PI proceedings

The UPC has quickly gained popularity for preliminary injunction (PI) proceedings, with 49 requests filed in a short period. This popularity is largely due to the UPC’s approach to PI proceedings, which resembles a mini-trial, addition, the approach in the Netherlands. The UPC does not impose high thresholds for granting a PI; a ‘more likely than not’ standard suffices. Additionally, the UPC does not adopt a rigid stance on urgency, nor does it require that in principle only patents tested for validity in inter partes proceedings can be invoked, as was previously the case in Germany.

However, it is important to note that a PI is only granted in cases where a provisional measure is appropriate. Statistics indicate that the UPC is not hesitant to grant a PI, with 58% of requests being approved. In cases where the PI was denied, nearly half were due to considerations of balance of interests or urgency. Other denials were because the patent was likely deemed invalid or there was likely no infringement.

Comparison with the Netherlands and Germany

When comparing these figures with those from the Netherlands, it is evident that during the period 2022-2024, the success rate for applicants was significantly lower. Only 36% of requests were granted, despite the system being quite similar to that of the UPC.

In Germany, however, during the period 2006-2016, patent owners had an even higher chance of success than in the UPC. At that time period in Germany, 69% of the applications by the patentee for provisional measures, were granted. We do note that these figures are more challenging to compare because, during that time the standard for validity was higher because typically only patent were considered which had been tested in inter partes proceedings. In addition, the requirements for urgency were quite settled and predictable. This likely meant that while a PI was less frequently possible in Germany, there was an automatic pre-selection process that resulted in a higher success rate for the disputes where a PI was tried.

Most decisions upheld in appeal

For completeness, here are the figures regarding appeals. Although the Court of Appeal has already handled a significant number of appeals concerning procedural issues, it has only rendered final decisions in five cases on appeal. Given that the UPC has been operational for less than 20 months, this is not surprising. However, it does mean that the statistics are not very telling. Currently, we see that in 67% of cases, the first-instance decision is upheld, meaning in 4 out of the 6 cases. Had it been one more, this would have immediately been 83%, illustrating how sensitive these statistics still are.

It is worth noting that an appeal is de novo in the sense that the Court of Appeal makes its own judgment based on the facts presented and the matters raised in the appeal. While new facts and arguments can only be introduced to a limited extent, the decision is not confined to matters of law.

Patents are held valid in the vast majority of the cases

When examining all cases where a judgment has been made in first instance regarding the validity of the patent in dispute, whether in main proceedings or preliminary injunctions, it is evident that patents are found valid in the vast majority of instances. In 72% of cases, the patent was deemed valid as granted or in an amended form.

In 28% of cases, the patent was considered invalid. A lack of novelty, obviousness, and added matter were equally the primary reasons that a patent was deemed invalid. The high score for added matter might surprise some, as there was hope it would be assessed less stringently at the UPC than at the EPO and many mainland European courts. Countries like the UK and the US often apply a less stringent test, making the strictness of the mainland European approach challenging for US patent holders to grasp. The UPC appears as strict as the EPO and mainland Europe, as shown in the statistics. However, it’s important to remember that the numbers are still low, and the Court of Appeal has yet to comment on the applicable test. Until then, patent holders should be ready for a stringent added matter test if their patents face UPC litigation.

Speed: UPC is a true “Rocket Docket”

One of the promises of the UPC is, of course, speed. According to the Preamble of the RoP a hearing in main proceedings should normally take place “within one year,” while Rule 118 explicitly states that the UPC shall endeavour to had down decisions on the merits “within six weeks of the oral hearing.” In other words, from lodging the claim to a decision should typically take about 13-14 months. This is remarkably fast. Does the UPC meet this expectation? Looking at the decisions so far, the UPC in fact meets this high expectation.

In infringement proceedings, a decision has so far been rendered on average after 13.9 months. Notably, the two busiest local divisions, the LD Munich and then the LD Düsseldorf, are at or even below the average. The LD Düsseldorf is even the fastest local division, while also having handed down the most decisions. An impressive achievement. The LD Mannheim is the slowest division, but they have only issued one decision, and that was in a SEP case with defendants from China.

Looking at the speed of revocation actions, it is still fast with an average of 14.4 months, but interestingly, on bit slower than infringement proceedings, in which validity is normally also dealt with. Although statistically not a significant difference, it may be unexpected. On the other hand, a panel in the Central Division has 3 judges instead of 4 in a local or regional divisions if a technical judge is added to an infringement case. Perhaps this explains the difference.

Looking at PI proceedings, including ex parte, we see that it takes about 3 months on average for a final decision at first instance. This is again fast and, for example, comparable to PI proceedings in the Netherlands.

Appeal proceedings take about 5 months on average, but this has all been in interim relief. So these take significantly longer than PI proceedings in first instance.

Overall, the UPC is living up to its promise so far and proves to be a true rocket docket. The only caveat is that there may still be a skewed picture because the decisions that are still pending have simply not yet been rendered. We therefore expect the UPC to likely slow down a bit, especially in the busiest divisions.

Popularity of Unitary Patents also on the rise

Upon examining the popularity of the Unitary Patent, it is clear that its appeal is growing substantially. The Unitary Patent is especially favoured by applicants from the European Union, with an uptake rate reaching nearly 40% in 2024. This marks a notable increase from 26.3% in 2023. Should this trend continue, we anticipate that the percentage of applications from the EU could surpass 50% by 2025.

Furthermore, the global uptake rate of the Unitary Patent is also on the rise, increasing from 17.5% in 2023 to almost 26% in 2024.

Conclusion

The UPC is proving to be an effective and efficient forum for patent litigation, with a nearly 60% success rate for patentees in infringement and revocation proceedings. The court’s rapid handling of cases, averaging 13.9 months for infringement decisions, underscores its reputation as a “rocket docket.” Preliminary injunctions are granted in 58% of cases, reflecting the court’s willingness to intervene quickly, where necessary. While the court’s patentee-friendliness may still be up to further debate, its success rates suggest a favourable environment compared to national courts like those in the Netherlands and Germany. Additionally, the popularity of the Unitary Patent is rising, with significant uptake among EU applicants, indicating growing confidence in the system.