Over the first two years, Local and Regional Divisions considered 59 PI applications. Excluding cases that were withdrawn, settled, closed or still pending, 41 decisions were issued. The outcome of those decisions among the applications decided over two years was as follows:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Granted<\/strong> 39%<\/li>\n
- Partially granted<\/strong> 14.6%<\/li>\n
- Not granted<\/strong> 46.3%<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2026\/01\/Blog-Image-1.png\")
<\/p>\nFigure 1. Preliminary injunctions to stop infringement granted during the UPC\u2019s Year One and Year Two<\/small><\/p>\n
As illustrated by Figure 2, PI outcomes at the UPC are fairly stable year over year. Overall grant rates among the applications decided increased (35% in Year One compared to 42.9% in Year Two) suggesting that the court\u2019s approach to granting injunctions has become more patentee-friendly. Since there is not a dramatic change in the partial grants, non-grants followed an opposing trend and fell from 50% to 42.9%.<\/p>\n
Taken together, these results show that while the UPC remains selective about granting full injunctions, it is increasingly willing to issue tailored or conditional relief, perhaps signaling growing confidence among divisions as they refine their standards for urgency, infringement likelihood, and validity at this early stage of the court\u2019s life.<\/p>\n
\n\n
\n Decision<\/td>\n Year one<\/td>\n Year two<\/td>\n Increase\/decrease<\/td>\n % change<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Granted<\/td>\n 35%<\/td>\n 42.86%<\/td>\n +7.86%<\/td>\n 28%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Partially granted<\/td>\n 15%<\/td>\n 14.29%<\/td>\n -0.71%<\/td>\n 0%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Not granted<\/td>\n 50%<\/td>\n 42.86%<\/td>\n -7.14%<\/td>\n -10%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Figure 2. Decisions before the UPC in year one versus year two.<\/small><\/p>\n
Grant rates diverge: Where patentees find more favorable forums<\/strong><\/h3>\n
At the division level, grant rate outcomes from Years One and Two vary sharply, with Munich being the most favorable and Hamburg the most conservative:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Munich Local <\/strong>55.6% granted\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 11.1% partial<\/li>\n
- D\u00fcsseldorf Local <\/strong>33.3% granted\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 33.3% partial<\/li>\n
- The Hague Local <\/strong>33.3% granted\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 33.3% partial<\/li>\n
- Hamburg Local <\/strong>28.<\/strong>6% granted\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 14.2% partial<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
With two-thirds of PI requests at least partially granted, Munich continues to offer the most favorable environment for patentees seeking urgent relief. Interestingly, pre-UPC national court data (2020-2025) show much higher PI grant rates in Germany (Dusseldorf LG: 65.8%, Munich LG: 70.5%, Hamburg LG: 83.3%), indicating that the UPC is setting a higher bar for PI overall.<\/p>\n
As seen in Figure 3, the most common reasons for denial across all locations include \u201cno (apparent) infringement\u201d and \u201cright is not (apparently) valid,\u201d with a handful of decisions citing urgency, balance of interests, or lack of imminent danger.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2026\/01\/Blog-Image-2.png\")
<\/p>\nFigure 3: Reason for refusal of preliminary injunction to stop infringement during the UPC\u2019s year one and year two.<\/small><\/p>\n
Speed matters: The Hague leads while Munich lags behind<\/strong><\/h3>\n
While the UPC continues to establish its procedures, the data reveals that the pace of decision-making remains uneven. Variability between local divisions suggests that efficiency gains are not yet consistent across the system. Some divisions are processing cases in record time, while others are still adjusting to caseload growth and procedural complexity. Per Figure 4, the shortest PI proceeding is found before The Hague (median duration of 91 days), while the longest is before Munich (median duration of 143 days). In practice, this means that proceedings before The Hague (and Hamburg) tend to conclude roughly one month faster than those in Munich and two months in Dusseldorf.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2026\/01\/Blog-Image-3.png\")
<\/p>\nFigure 4. Proceeding median duration by local \/ regional division during UPC\u2019s Year Two<\/small><\/p>\n
For claimants and defendants alike, this means that forum selection continues to play a significant role in determining how quickly an application for PI reaches an outcome. The difference of several months between divisions can translate into major strategic and financial impacts.<\/p>\n
Strategy in motion: choosing between speed and grant likelihood<\/strong><\/h3>\n
The real-world implication revealed by this litigation data is highly strategic: when timing is critical, such as in active product launches or imminent market entries, The Hague remains the go-to venue for fast resolution. Conversely, when the objective is maximizing the likelihood of success, Munich offers the highest PI grant rate to date. In other words, patentees should weigh early merits outcomes in parallel: while Munich\u2019s speed may lag, its relatively patentee-friendly stance may justify the trade-off in some cases.<\/p>\n
Methodology <\/strong><\/h3>\n
This analysis covers UPC litigation from June 1, 2023, to May 31, 2025, using data from the Darts-Ip patent litigation database.\u00a0 PI statistics are based on the complaint date of the application for the PI.<\/p>\n
About the authors<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Eric Sergheraert<\/strong><\/p>\n
Eric is a Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) and a Doctor of Law (Phd) and holds the certificate of aptitude for the profession of lawyer (CAPA) and a Diploma in Patents from CEIPI (the Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies in Strasbourg). He has 27 years of experience in the intellectual property profession and has worked in the IP service of the Macopharma Pharmaceutical Laboratory, the firm EGYP (IP consultants) and the law firm V\u00e9ron & Associ\u00e9s. He is Professor at the University of Lille (France) and Director, Litigation content strategy for the international IP case law database Darts ip, part of Clarivate.<\/p>\n
Ne\u015fe G\u00fcnal <\/strong>is a Senior Manager at Clarivate, coordinating a global team working on legal content analysis, observing patent prosecution and litigation trends worldwide, and managing the patent-related curation projects for Darts-ip. She holds a Master of Intellectual Property and ICT Law (cum laude) from KU Leuven.<\/p>\n
- D\u00fcsseldorf Local <\/strong>33.3% granted\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 33.3% partial<\/li>\n
- Partially granted<\/strong> 14.6%<\/li>\n