Patentee win rates: Stable overall, but with big swings by division<\/strong><\/h3>\nAcross the 36 merits decisions issued in the UPC\u2019s first two years, patentees prevailed in 54.2% of cases, an outcome that remained relatively steady year to year (57.9% from June 2023 to May 2024 vs. 52.4% from June 2024 to May 2025).<\/p>\n
But the topline number obscures a striking split among the most active divisions. Munich has the highest win rate of 71.4%, followed by D\u00fcsseldorf at 60.0%, then Mannheim at 50%, and Paris with the lowest rate of 33.4%.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2026\/04\/Blog-UPC-table-1.png\")
<\/p>\n
Figure 1: Patentee win rates by UPC division in year two<\/small><\/p>\nWhy are outcomes so different?<\/strong><\/h3>\nIf we dig a little deeper, two notable patterns emerge from this UPC litigation data. In Munich, Mannheim, and Paris, every loss for the patentee resulted from the patent being revoked, meaning infringement was never assessed. In D\u00fcsseldorf, losses were split: 20% were revoked, and 20% were maintained but not infringed.<\/p>\n
The data reveals an important takeaway for patentees \u2013 the risk of revocation is not uniform across the UPC.<\/p>\n
Speed matters: Paris is the fastest path to a merits decision<\/strong><\/h3>\nExamining the win rate data, we also see that not all divisions move at the same pace. Median duration to a merits decision shows a spread of nearly three months between the fastest and slowest divisions. Paris is the fastest division on merits, though it delivers the lowest win rate. Mannheim, while balanced in outcomes, is the slowest.<\/p>\n
This speed variation can meaningfully shape enforcement timelines, injunction pressure, and portfolio-level strategy for plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2026\/04\/Blog-UPC-table-2.png\")
<\/p>\n
Figure 2: Median duration to merits decision by UPC division in year two<\/small><\/p>\nPutting it all together: Strategy implications going into year three<\/strong><\/h3>\nAcross the first two years of the UPC, a number of data-driven patterns stand out, and together, they offer a clearer blueprint for how patentees and defendants might approach UPC litigation. Overall takeaways from the data are as follows:<\/p>\n
\n- Forum selection matters more than ever.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
With patentee win rates ranging from 71.4% in Munich to 33.4% in Paris, forum choice can meaningfully shift risk. For patentees, Munich currently presents the most favorable merits landscape. For defendants, Paris and Mannheim offer comparatively lower patentee success rates.<\/p>\n
\n- Insights from preliminary injunction outcomes show meaningful differences across divisions:<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n- Need speed? The Hague is the fastest division for preliminary injunctions (median 91 days \u2013 52 days shorter than the longest).<\/li>\n
- Need a higher likelihood of grant? Munich has the strongest preliminary injunction grant rate profile by far (55,6% granted).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Aligning PI and merits strategy early, especially around urgency, risk tolerance, and forum dynamics, can materially change the trajectory of a case.<\/p>\n
\n- Consider the technology mix when assessing risk.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Digital communication, medical technology, and telecom dominate UPC infringement activity. These sectors tend to see more complex, higher-value disputes, often with aggressive PI behavior. Understanding how your technology fits into the UPC ecosystem helps forecast adversary behavior, speed, and division expertise.<\/p>\n
\n- Adjust timing expectations to reflect real UPC durations.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Merits decisions take 408\u2013490 days, depending on division. Besides the fact that UPC, merits timelines are quite efficient, this data reveals meaningful differences across divisions.<\/p>\n
\n- Litigation data can be a strategic differentiator.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Litigants with access to high-quality UPC analytics on filings, technologies, preliminary injunction outcomes, merits decisions, durations, and revocation patterns will be better positioned to:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\nWhy are outcomes so different?<\/strong><\/h3>\nIf we dig a little deeper, two notable patterns emerge from this UPC litigation data. In Munich, Mannheim, and Paris, every loss for the patentee resulted from the patent being revoked, meaning infringement was never assessed. In D\u00fcsseldorf, losses were split: 20% were revoked, and 20% were maintained but not infringed.<\/p>\n
The data reveals an important takeaway for patentees \u2013 the risk of revocation is not uniform across the UPC.<\/p>\n
Speed matters: Paris is the fastest path to a merits decision<\/strong><\/h3>\nExamining the win rate data, we also see that not all divisions move at the same pace. Median duration to a merits decision shows a spread of nearly three months between the fastest and slowest divisions. Paris is the fastest division on merits, though it delivers the lowest win rate. Mannheim, while balanced in outcomes, is the slowest.<\/p>\n
This speed variation can meaningfully shape enforcement timelines, injunction pressure, and portfolio-level strategy for plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Figure 2: Median duration to merits decision by UPC division in year two<\/small><\/p>\nPutting it all together: Strategy implications going into year three<\/strong><\/h3>\nAcross the first two years of the UPC, a number of data-driven patterns stand out, and together, they offer a clearer blueprint for how patentees and defendants might approach UPC litigation. Overall takeaways from the data are as follows:<\/p>\n
\n- Forum selection matters more than ever.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
With patentee win rates ranging from 71.4% in Munich to 33.4% in Paris, forum choice can meaningfully shift risk. For patentees, Munich currently presents the most favorable merits landscape. For defendants, Paris and Mannheim offer comparatively lower patentee success rates.<\/p>\n
\n- Insights from preliminary injunction outcomes show meaningful differences across divisions:<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n- Need speed? The Hague is the fastest division for preliminary injunctions (median 91 days \u2013 52 days shorter than the longest).<\/li>\n
- Need a higher likelihood of grant? Munich has the strongest preliminary injunction grant rate profile by far (55,6% granted).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Aligning PI and merits strategy early, especially around urgency, risk tolerance, and forum dynamics, can materially change the trajectory of a case.<\/p>\n
\n- Consider the technology mix when assessing risk.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Digital communication, medical technology, and telecom dominate UPC infringement activity. These sectors tend to see more complex, higher-value disputes, often with aggressive PI behavior. Understanding how your technology fits into the UPC ecosystem helps forecast adversary behavior, speed, and division expertise.<\/p>\n
\n- Adjust timing expectations to reflect real UPC durations.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Merits decisions take 408\u2013490 days, depending on division. Besides the fact that UPC, merits timelines are quite efficient, this data reveals meaningful differences across divisions.<\/p>\n
\n- Litigation data can be a strategic differentiator.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Litigants with access to high-quality UPC analytics on filings, technologies, preliminary injunction outcomes, merits decisions, durations, and revocation patterns will be better positioned to:<\/p>\n
Examining the win rate data, we also see that not all divisions move at the same pace. Median duration to a merits decision shows a spread of nearly three months between the fastest and slowest divisions. Paris is the fastest division on merits, though it delivers the lowest win rate. Mannheim, while balanced in outcomes, is the slowest.<\/p>\n
This speed variation can meaningfully shape enforcement timelines, injunction pressure, and portfolio-level strategy for plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Figure 2: Median duration to merits decision by UPC division in year two<\/small><\/p>\n Across the first two years of the UPC, a number of data-driven patterns stand out, and together, they offer a clearer blueprint for how patentees and defendants might approach UPC litigation. Overall takeaways from the data are as follows:<\/p>\n With patentee win rates ranging from 71.4% in Munich to 33.4% in Paris, forum choice can meaningfully shift risk. For patentees, Munich currently presents the most favorable merits landscape. For defendants, Paris and Mannheim offer comparatively lower patentee success rates.<\/p>\n Aligning PI and merits strategy early, especially around urgency, risk tolerance, and forum dynamics, can materially change the trajectory of a case.<\/p>\n Digital communication, medical technology, and telecom dominate UPC infringement activity. These sectors tend to see more complex, higher-value disputes, often with aggressive PI behavior. Understanding how your technology fits into the UPC ecosystem helps forecast adversary behavior, speed, and division expertise.<\/p>\n Merits decisions take 408\u2013490 days, depending on division. Besides the fact that UPC, merits timelines are quite efficient, this data reveals meaningful differences across divisions.<\/p>\n Litigants with access to high-quality UPC analytics on filings, technologies, preliminary injunction outcomes, merits decisions, durations, and revocation patterns will be better positioned to:<\/p>\nPutting it all together: Strategy implications going into year three<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n