# News Detail Share now [](https://www.linkedin.com/uas/login?session_redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2FshareArticle%3Fmini%3Dtrue%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fhoyngrokhgroup.com%2Fde%2Fneuigkeiten%2Fdetail%2Fstatistics-on-the-unified-patent-court-infringement-action-outcomes-july-2026%26title%3DStatistics%20on%20the%20Unified%20Patent%20Court%20%20%20Infringement%20action%20outcomes%20-%20July%202026%26summary%3D "Linkedin") # Statistics on the Unified Patent Court Infringement action outcomes - July 2026 14. Juli 2026 UPC Statistics Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hot Topic News As a part of HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER's series on statistics on the Unified Patent Court (UPC), this article presents an analysis of outcomes in first instance infringement action decisions. As the data shows, claimants prevailed in 48% of the cases overall, but win rates vary significantly across local divisions. The dataset was collected by 29 June 2026 and reflects HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER's internal database of published decisions. The data is intended to reflect observable patterns in the included decisions. Within the dataset, each decision is categorized as (i) valid and infringed, (ii) valid but not infringed, or (iii) invalid. Categories (i) and (ii) include decisions in which validity was not contested or dealt with, as well as when the patent was upheld in amended form. Actions dismissed due to lack of the Court's competence are excluded. You can contact our experts [here](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/our-team/legal-experts). ### *Infringement action outcomes* #### 1. Outcomes in first instance infringement actions ##### 1.1 Overview The Court of First Instance dataset contains 112 published decisions. Of these decisions, 48% resulted in an outcome of patent validity and infringement, 27% resulted in an outcome of valid but not infringed and 25% resulted in invalidity of the asserted patent. This corresponds to 54 findings of infringement of a valid patent, 30 decisions in which the patent was valid but not infringed and 28 decisions in which the patent was held invalid. The aggregate figures show a near-even distribution between claimant success and defence outcomes. Valid and infringed is treated as the claimant-success category. Valid but not infringed and invalidity are treated as defence outcomes as the infringement claim does not succeed. On that basis, claimants succeeded in 48% of decisions and defendants succeeded in 52%. The data also shows that patents were not held invalid in 75% of the decisions. That rate is high due to the chosen methodology, as the relevant categories include decisions where validity was not in dispute, not addressed or upheld in amended form. #### 2. First instance Divisions with 10+ decisions ##### 2.1 General discussion The four Local Divisions with more than ten decisions are Düsseldorf, Munich, Mannheim and Paris. Together, these divisions account for 80 decisions, or approximately 71% of the full dataset. Within this group, the combined outcome closely reflects the overall first instance distribution, but at division-level, trends differ. Düsseldorf and Mannheim are the Local Divisions in this group with a claimant success rate higher than the average. Düsseldorf has the highest claimant success rate, with 65% findings of a valid and infringed patent, and the lowest share of invalidity findings, at 12%. Mannheim is close to the aggregate distribution, with 50% cases in which patents are found valid and infringed, 22% valid but not infringed and 28% invalid. Munich and Paris show a different distribution. In Munich, the claimant success rate is 40%, as is the invalidity rate (i.e. 40%), with 20% of cases leading to a finding of a valid patent but no infringement. The Local Division of Paris has the lowest claimant success rate among the larger divisions, at 27%, while in 36% of the cases the patent was found valid but not infringed, and an equal share of the cases resulted in a finding of invalidity. The Paris percentages should be read in light of the smaller number of decisions in that division compared with Düsseldorf, Munich and Mannheim. The larger Local Divisions thus do not present a uniform outcome profile. Düsseldorf has a comparatively higher claimant success rate, and Munich significantly lower with a larger share of invalidity findings; Mannheim is closest to the aggregate distribution and Paris has the largest combined share of successful defences to an infringement claim. #### 3. First instance Divisions with 5-10 decisions ##### 3.1 General discussion The intermediate group in terms of number of decisions, consists of Hamburg, Milan and The Hague. Each division has 7 decisions in the dataset, i.e. 21 decisions in total, or approximately 19% of the full dataset. These three Local Divisions show varying trends. The Local Division of Milan has the highest claimant success rate in the group, with 57% of cases resulting in a finding of a valid and infringed patent, with only 14% of cases resulting in a finding of invalidity. The latter percentage is the same for The Hague. In Hamburg, the largest share of cases resulted in a finding of non-infringement, at 43%, with invalidity accounting for 29%. In The Hague, outcomes are evenly split between findings of infringement of a valid patent and findings of non-infringement, while 14% of decisions resulted in invalidity. The intermediate group therefore illustrates that a limited decision count can generate different profiles. The Local Division in Milan sits above the aggregate claimant-success rate, Hamburg significantly below it, and The Hague close to a balanced split between claimant success and non-infringement outcomes. The group should not be treated as a ranking of divisions because each percentage is based on only seven decisions. A small number of additional outcomes could change the distribution. #### 4. First instance Divisions with less than 5 decisions ##### 4.1 Overview The first instance Divisions dealing with infringement actions with fewer than five decisions are the Local Divisions of Copenhagen, Vienna, Brussels, Helsinki and Lisbon, and the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division. Together, they account for 9 decisions. This group represents approximately 8% of the full dataset. Because each division has one or two decisions, the percentages in this group should be read as a description of individual outcomes rather than as division-level rates. A single additional decision could change the percentages substantially. #### 5. Central Divisions ##### 5.1 Overview The regional and central division group consists of four decisions. The Nordic-Baltic Regional Division has 2 decisions, both of which were classified as valid and infringed. Milan Central Division has 1 decision, which was classified as valid and infringed. Paris Central has 1 decision, which was classified as invalid. Taken together, this group contains 3 valid and infringed outcomes and 1 invalid outcome. There are no valid but not infringed outcomes in the group. The sample size is too limited for comparison with the Local Division outcomes. The small number of decisions means that the outcome percentages are driven by individual cases. #### 6. Discussion and conclusions The data indicates that published first instance infringement action outcomes before the UPC are balanced at aggregate level. Claimants succeeded in approximately 48% of the decisions. Valid but not infringed and invalid outcomes together account for 52%. The margin between these two groups is limited. The same aggregate data also indicates that patent validity and infringement success should be analysed separately. A patent may survive the decision but still not support an infringement finding. This is reflected, subject to the methodology, in the 27% share of valid but not infringed outcomes. Division-level results differ significantly. The Local Divisions of Düsseldorf and Milan show substantially higher claimant success rates than average. The Local Divisions of Munich and Paris show higher invalidity rates than average. Hamburg and The Hague show a higher relative role for non-infringement outcomes. These patterns should be read as observable differences within the included decisions, not as evidence of patentee-friendly or -unfriendly practice. Small Local Divisions and the Regional and Central Divisions have too few decisions to support broader conclusions. Their results are included for completeness. The overall figures do not establish that UPC infringement actions are generally claimant favourable or defendant favourable. Future datasets may change these percentages as more decisions are published. For the current dataset, the principal observation is that outcome rates differ by division and by the way in which the outcome is measured. To understand the individual outcomes on the basis of which the aggregated figures are presented, explore our weekly UPC Unfiltered, where Professor Willem Hoyng provides his unfiltered views on UPC decisions. Continued statistical analysis is conducted and published on a monthly basis, with regular updates shared both on LinkedIn and on our website: [HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER](https://hoyngrokhgroup.com/). These data are selections from a wider pool of statistical data on all decisions published by the UPC. In case you have specific enquiries on parameters different from what we publish, please reach out. Data Note *The statistics in this report are derived from HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER's internal database as of 29 June 2026. The dataset includes published first instance infringement action decisions before Local, Regional and Central Divisions. Valid and infringed and valid but not infringed include decisions wherein validity was not contested or dealt with, and decisions wherein the patent was upheld in amended form. Actions dismissed due to lack of the Court's competence are excluded.*