UPC statistics

The essentials in five questions

This page follows a case through the UPC: where it is litigated, how the evidence is gathered, how long the merits take, how they are decided and what the Court of Appeal makes of it.

1. 1. Where to litigate? The four German local divisions hand down 60.4% of first instance decisions. Paris, home to both the seat of the central division and a local division, is the leading venue outside Germany, with 222 decisions and orders. Its seat of the central division is the leading venue for standalone revocation (57 cases).
2. 2. Securing the evidence? A saisie is almost always granted. Of 13 saisies reviewed at the defendant’s request, 9 were upheld unchanged. In Paris, all three reviewed saisies were upheld, and the Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals brought in the Tiru case.
3. 3. How long? Before the local divisions, an infringement action is decided on the merits in a median 16.8 months. The Paris local division is the fastest (13.8 months), Düsseldorf the slowest (17.9 months).
4. 4. With what outcome? Of 43 decisions ruling on validity, 36 leave the patent standing, as granted or in amended form. Infringement is found in 23 of the 43 decisions that rule on it. At the Paris seat, all four patents decided on the merits were maintained in amended form.
5. 5. And on appeal? Appeals take a growing share of the Court’s activity: 493 decisions and orders handed down in 308 identified appeal proceedings.

1. Where to litigate

Every case starts with the choice of a division. Paris, seat of the central division and home to a local division, is the Court’s leading venue outside Germany, with 222 decisions and orders recorded. For standalone revocation, the Paris seat of the central division is the Court’s leading venue: 57 identified cases, more than the Munich and Milan sections combined (37).

2. Securing the evidence

Before the merits, a patentee often seeks evidence on the alleged infringer’s premises through a saisie ordered without the defendant being heard. The useful question is less whether the saisie is granted, it almost always is, than whether it holds when the defendant applies for its review.

Does the saisie survive review?

Of the 13 saisie or inspection orders reviewed at the defendant’s request, 9 were upheld unchanged, 3 were modified and 1 revoked. The Paris local division is the one whose saisies were most often reviewed, and all three were upheld. In the Tiru case, the Court of Appeal then dismissed both appeals on 15 July 2025.

How to read: for each division with at least two reviews, the number of saisies upheld unchanged out of the number reviewed. A saisie upheld subject to new conditions (security, tighter confidentiality) counts as modified.

1. 1 Paris local division3 of 3 upheld unchanged
2. 2 Milan local division2 of 2 upheld unchanged
3. 3 Düsseldorf local division1 of 2 upheld unchanged
4. 4 The Hague local division1 of 2 upheld unchanged

Basis: 21 decisions ruling on the review of an order made without hearing the defendant, from June 2023 to September 2026, read on their operative part, 13 of which concern a saisie or inspection (the other 8 concern provisional measures or the same order). A single review in Brussels and Copenhagen (upheld), Munich (modified) and Mannheim (revoked). The numbers are small: these figures describe decisions handed down, not a probability.

3. How long

Choosing a division also means choosing a timetable. To compare like with like, the measure covers infringement actions decided by the local divisions.

How long does an infringement action take?

Before the local divisions, which hear infringement actions, the merits decision comes a median 16.8 months after the action is brought. The Paris local division is the fastest (13.8 months), Düsseldorf the slowest (17.9 months). The gap between the two ends of the ranking is about four months: in median terms, every ranked division decides the merits within eighteen months.

How to read: each bar gives the median time, in months, between the filing of the action and the decision on the merits, from the fastest division to the slowest. In brackets, the shortest and longest durations observed, the number of decisions and, where relevant, how many have an estimated filing date.

1. 1 Paris local division13.8 months (11.8 to 16.6 · 3 decisions)
2. 2 Mannheim local division14.8 months (12.2 to 15.9 · 5 decisions, 2 estimated)
3. 3 Munich local division15.7 months (11.4 to 24.0 · 13 decisions, 9 estimated)
4. 4 The Hague local division16.4 months (13.7 to 18.9 · 3 decisions)
5. 5 Milan local division17.4 months (11.2 to 19.1 · 4 decisions, 1 estimated)
6. 6 Düsseldorf local division17.9 months (17.0 to 23.4 · 8 decisions, 7 estimated)

Basis: 40 merits decisions handed down by the local divisions between May 2025 and September 2026. Where the decision does not date the filing of the action, as is the case for most Düsseldorf decisions, the date is estimated from the case number, which the Registry assigns in order of filing (19 decisions). Checked against the cases whose filing date is known, the estimate is off by a median of one week and by one month at most. Where the number used is that of a counterclaim, it understates the duration. Only divisions with at least three decisions are ranked. Not ranked: Hamburg (2), Lisbon (1), Helsinki (1). Pending cases, often the longest, are not counted: these durations are lower bounds.

4. With what outcome

A merits decision answers two distinct questions: is the patent valid, and is it infringed? The answers vary from one division to another, on numbers that remain small. At the Paris seat of the central division, all four merits decisions ruling on validity maintained the patent in amended form, with neither a full revocation nor a patent upheld as granted. Before the Paris local division, infringement was rejected in all three merits decisions.

How claims fare on the merits

Of the 103 published decisions attached to infringement actions and to revocation actions or counterclaims, 56 actually decide the merits: 25 record a withdrawal or a settlement, 20 deal with procedure, costs or the value of the dispute, and 2 are unreadable in the register (PDFs without a text layer). Each operative part was read and coded individually.

Of the 43 decisions in the sub-corpus that rule on validity, 7 revoke the patent entirely and 36 leave it standing: 20 maintain it as granted and 16 in amended form or shorn of some claims. Of the 43 decisions that rule on infringement, 23 find it established, including 2 by default, and 20 reject it. These distributions describe a qualified sub-corpus of 56 merits decisions, not the caseload as a whole.

5. And on appeal

The share of appeals in the Court’s activity has grown fivefold since 2023.

Appeals before the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has issued 493 decisions and orders in 308 identified appeal proceedings. Each appeal was linked, by reading the decision itself, to the first instance case it arises from: 160 of the 711 first instance cases have already led to at least one published decision of the Court of Appeal, that is 22.5%.

The breakdown above reproduces the heading under which each appeal is registered. It is not a legal qualification. Rule 220.1 of the Rules of Procedure covers final decisions of the Court of First Instance (a), decisions terminating proceedings as regards one of the parties (b) and the orders referred to in its point (c), namely those made under Articles 59, 60, 61, 62 and 67 of the Agreement, that is in particular provisional measures and measures preserving evidence. The register heading therefore does not allow Rule 220.1 to be equated with final decisions alone, and the decision-by-decision check has not been carried out. Separately, 35 appeal proceedings ended in a withdrawal.

Standard essential patents and life sciences

Decisions on standard essential patents and in life sciences are collected in FRAND Litigation Watch and Pharma Litigation Watch. Their volumes are not shown here until the thematic classification of the 2023 and 2024 decisions is complete.