# 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%2Fwww.hoyngrokhmonegier.com%2Ffr%2Factualites%2Fdetail%2Fstatistics-on-the-unified-patent-court-infringement-actions%26title%3DStatistics%20on%20the%20Unified%20Patent%20Court%3A%20Infringement%20Actions%26summary%3D "Linkedin") # Statistics on the Unified Patent Court: Infringement Actions 09 février 2026 News 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 on success rates in infringement actions. The dataset was collected by 9 February 2026 and reflects publicly available decisions on the UPC registry. Interested in more of this? Stay tuned and subscribe [here ](https://mailchi.mp/8fbd8890d03b/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng)for monthly updates. You can also contact our experts [here](https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/our-team/legal-experts). ### Infringement Actions #### 1. All Local, Regional and Central Divisions Across the 76 decided infringement actions before the First Instance Divisions by 9 February 2026, the outcomes are relatively evenly distributed. Claimants were successful in 49% of cases, whilst defendants succeeded in 51%, being successful in counterclaims for revocation (26%) and findings of non-infringement (25%). This split is visualised (Figure 1), with valid and infringed accounting for successful outcomes for claimants, and both invalid and valid but not infringed constituting the total for unsuccessful outcomes. In this analysis, the claimant’s success was defined by the court finding partial or total infringement of the patent in dispute. The defendant was found successful already on the basis of the infringement action being dismissed. The categories of valid and infringed and valid but not infringed include decisions in which validity was not contested or addressed by the court, as well as decisions in which the patent was upheld in an amended form. Where a defendant did not file a counterclaim for revocation, the patent was counted as valid. Figure 1. Infringement action outcomes (Courts of First Instance) #### 2. First Instance Divisions with more than five decisions Filtering the outcomes per court shows that certain divisions record a higher claimant win rate (Düsseldorf at 53% and The Hague at 50%), while others produced more decisions that ended in revocation of the patent. Local Divisions such as Munich and Paris recorded a revocation rate as high as their rate of infringement findings (Munich 44%, Paris 38%). Munich has attracted the largest share of UPC infringement actions overall. Next to Düsseldorf's higher claimant success rate (53%), it is remarkable that of the 17 decisions in the dataset (by 9 February 2026), only 18% resulted in a finding of invalidity, which is substantially below the aggregate rate across all divisions. The Local Division of The Hague follows a similar pattern, with a 50% claimant success rate across 6 decisions with no full invalidity findings by 9 February 2026. On the contrary, the Local Divisions of Munich, Paris and Mannheim recorded the highest invalidity rates and the lowest on claimant success. The relationship between invalidity rates and claimant success is not one of straightforward causation but reflects the composition of cases before each division. Figure 2. First Instance Divisions with more than five decisions) #### 3. First Instance Divisions with five or fewer decisions For divisions with five or fewer decisions, the data carries limited weight as an indicator of trends: a few outcomes can determine whether a division appears claimant-friendly or defendant-friendly. At the time of collection of the data, the Local Divisions of Vienna and Copenhagen, the Regional Division of Nordic Baltic Regional, and the Central Division of Milan each show a 100% success rate on the claimant's side, whereas Brussels presents the opposite outcome in its one decision. The Local Division of Hamburg shows an exceptional total claimant lose rate of 80% (5 decisions), whilst the Local Division of Milan records almost the contrary (67% success rate for 3 decisions). As the volume of decisions increases, the distributional picture is expected to converge toward the aggregate. Figure 3. First Instance Divisions with five or fewer decisions #### 4. Discussion and conclusions The aggregate trend that emerges from the dataset is broadly balanced. The divergence in invalidity rates and claimant success rates across divisions may be considered relevant to forum shopping. At present, however, it is difficult to attribute those differences confidently to judicial approach alone, since divisions are not yet receiving equivalent volumes of cases. As divisions begin to receive more comparable caseloads, differences in approach and outcomes may be expected to narrow. While the figures shown here benefit from review across several dimensions, some aspects are necessarily lost once outcomes are grouped together. 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](https://www.linkedin.com/company/hoyng-rokh-monegier/posts/?feedView=all) and on our website: [HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER UPC.](https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/unified-patent-court-upc) The statistics included in this article are based on decisions of the Unified Patent Court and are intended to provide an indicative overview. The dataset was collected as of 9 February 2026.