# 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%2Fnews-insights%2Fdetail%2Fstatistics-on-the-unified-patent-court-withdrawal-and-conclusion-rates-october-2026%26title%3DStatistics%20on%20the%20Unified%20Patent%20Court%3A%20Withdrawal%20and%20conclusion%20rates%20-%20October%202026%26summary%3D "Linkedin") # Statistics on the Unified Patent Court: Withdrawal and conclusion rates - October 2026 04 November 2026 UPC Statistics Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hot Topic As part of HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER's series on statistics on the Unified Patent Court (UPC), this section presents how often patent disputes are concluded through a withdrawal. It is limited to infringement and revocation actions, declarations of non-infringement and applications for provisional measures, both at first instance and on appeal. The analysis draws on publicly available UPC records compiled as of 19 October 2026. Withdrawals include proceedings discontinued or settled before a substantive decision. On appeal, the figures distinguish between all relevant appeals under rule 220.1 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) and those directed specifically at first instance findings on the merits. Interested in more of this? Stay tuned and subscribe [here](https://hoyngrokhmonegier-my.sharepoint.com/:u:/r/personal/kanerva_jalas_hoyngrokh_com/Documents/UPC%20Projects/Statistics%20Database/Publication%20Drafts/MKT%20Newsletter/Test%20UPC%20Statistics%20-%20July%202026.msg?csf=1&web=1&e=odxxdh) for monthly updates. You can contact our experts [here](https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/our-team/legal-experts). ### *Withdrawal and conclusion rates* #### 1. Status of actions in first instance ##### 1.1 Overview The total caseload of the Court of First Instance increased from a total of 722 actions up until May 2026 to 867 in October 2026. The number of closed matters increased from 420 to 533. Of the 867 actions, 39% remained pending at the collection date, 32% had been withdrawn and 29% had resulted in a decision. Among the 533 concluded proceedings, 279 (52%) ended in a withdrawal and 254 (48%) in a decision. The withdrawal rate was 53% in May 2026, so the overall balance has hardly moved. The percentages therefore show that withdrawal continues to be a standard part of the course of UPC litigation, suggesting that more than half of the cases get settled in first instance before reaching a decision. ##### 1.2 Withdrawal rates by action type Withdrawal rates are highest in infringement proceedings. Of 353 closed actions, 221 (63%) were withdrawn and 132 (37%) proceeded to a final judgment. The share ending before judgment has barely changed since May, when it was 64%. Applications for provisional measures show the opposite. The Court decided 81 (83%) of the 98 closed applications, while only 17 (17%) were withdrawn. An application for interim relief gives the parties a shorter timetable and is often initiated to gain urgent judicial intervention. For those reasons, these types of cases are likelier to end in a decision, which is confirmed by the numbers. The withdrawal rate of standalone revocation actions falls between these two categories. Of the 78 closed actions on patent validity, 41 (53%) resulted in a decision and 37 (47%) ended in withdrawal. Declarations of non-infringement remain a limited category. All four closed actions were withdrawn, so no broader conclusion can be drawn from their treatment. #### 2. Local and Regional Divisions ##### 2.1 Infringement actions Munich offers the clearest example of infringement claims ending in a withdrawal. The Local Division dealt with 117 concluded actions in total consisting of 88 withdrawals and 29 decisions, meaning that 75% of these cases were therefore discontinued. This percentage is the highest among all Local Divisions, even when including those Local Divisions that have a relatively low number of infringement actions. At Mannheim, 40 of 60 concluded infringement actions were withdrawn (67%). Similarly, in Hamburg 20 of 30 actions (67%) ended in a withdrawal. In Düsseldorf, the numbers are more balanced: 37 of 68 completed cases (54%) were withdrawn against 31 (46%) leading to a decision. All four German divisions saw more withdrawals than judgments. Paris decided on 14 closed infringement actions (61%) and recorded nine withdrawals (39%). Milan issued decisions in eight of 12 (67%), compared with four withdrawals. The Hague had a higher withdrawal rate: 12 of its 20 concluded cases (60%) ended without a decision, suggesting a higher settlement rate during first instance. Figures from smaller divisions carry less weight. Copenhagen, Helsinki and Vienna each concluded two infringement actions by decision and had no withdrawals by the time of collecting the data. With so few cases, a single additional closed case would alter the picture considerably ##### 2.2 Applications for provisional injunctions For provisional injunctions, an order on the application has generally been the rule rather than the exception. Düsseldorf decided 19 of 22 concluded applications (86%), and Hamburg decided 14 of 15 (93%). All ten matters completed in The Hague reached a decision (100%), as did eight of nine in Milan (89%). This emphasises the importance of obtaining a decision in this type of proceedings. Munich’s rates have more variety than the others. Of 20 concluded provisional injunction applications, 12 (60%) were decided and eight (40%) withdrawn. A decision remained the more frequently occurring endpoint. The remaining Local Divisions include four or fewer concluded applications, which limits the conclusions that can be drawn from their figures. The figures considered explicitly concern provisional injunction applications and exclude anti-anti-suit injunctions and anti-interim licence injunctions. #### 3. Central Divisions The analysis of Central Divisions is limited to standalone revocation actions. The Paris Central Division handled the largest number of concluded actions, with 51 in total. Out of these, 26 (51%) were withdrawn and 25 (49%) reached a decision. Decisions were more frequent in the other two Central Divisions with fewer actions. The Munich Central Division ruled on eight of its 13 closed revocation actions (62%), against five withdrawals (38%). The Milan Central Division decided seven of 13 (54%), while six (46%) were withdrawn. The balance in Milan has shifted since May, when withdrawals accounted for 60% of concluded revocation actions. The figures cover the Central Divisions only and exclude one revocation action decided elsewhere. #### 4. Withdrawal rates by industry in first instance infringement actions The withdrawal rates also vary depending on the technology involved. The industry groups follow the International Patent Classification (IPC). Each case is counted once, irrespective of the number of patents in suit. Electricity accounts for the largest number of infringement cases by industry, yet 79% of concluded actions were withdrawn and only 21% reached a decision. That proportion remains close to the 80% withdrawal share seen in May 2026. Licensing arrangements may partly explain the higher withdrawal rates in electrical and communications technologies, particularly in disputes involving standard essential patents. Other technical fields are more balanced. The withdrawal share was 54% in human necessities, 57% in physics and 56% in chemistry or metallurgy. By contrast, decisions prevailed in performing operations or transporting (63%), fixed constructions (64%) and mechanical engineering (60%). For performing operations or transporting, the withdrawal rate fell from 48% in May to 38% in October. #### 5. Status of appeals ##### 5.1 Methodology and scope The appellate statistics are limited to those lodged under Rule 220.1 RoP which covers appeals on the final decisions of the Court of First Instance, decisions terminating the proceedings, and selected orders under subsection 220.1 (c). Where an appeal on an infringement finding is accompanied by an appeal on a related counterclaim for revocation, the proceedings are jointly counted once under infringement; standalone revocation appeals are treated separately. The analysis distinguishes between all relevant appeals under Rule 220.1 RoP and appeals specifically concerning findings on the merits at first instance. ##### 5.2 Status of appeals The Court of Appeal had received 163 appeals within the broader category. Of these, 31% were pending, 28% had been withdrawn and 42% concluded in a final decision. Among the 113 concluded appeals, decisions accounted for 68 (60%) and withdrawals for 45 (40%). The decision share has edged up from 57% in May 2026 to 60% in October 2026. Taken on its own, this suggests that parties more often pursue an appeal to receive a final decision. That finding is less true when focusing on appeals on the merits only. Of 96 such appeals, 16 remained pending, 38 had been withdrawn and 42 had been decided. The 80 completed merits appeals were divided almost equally: 53% ended in a decision and 48% in withdrawal. Out of a total of 113 closed appeals, 80 appeals concerned findings on the merits. In the 33 closed appeals that are not considered appeals on the merits, no less than 26 reached a decision while seven were withdrawn. As such, procedural appeals are more likely to be litigated until the end and therefore also skew the results of the total pool of appeals. ##### 5.3 Withdrawal rates by action type Across all closed appeals based on Rule 220.1 RoP, infringement matters produced 37 decisions (61%) and 24 withdrawals (39%). Appeals on provisional measures were much more frequently decided, with 26 decisions (72%) and ten withdrawals (28%). Standalone revocation appeals are the outlier with 11 (69%) withdrawn appeals and five (31%) decided ones. The distinction between all appeals and appeals on the merits is especially important for infringement matters. Restricting the analysis to challenges of findings on the merits reverses the trend: out of 35 closed appeals, nineteen (54%) were withdrawn and 16 (46%) decided. In other words, an appeal directed at the substance of an infringement action has more often ended in withdrawal or a settlement. Applications for provisional measures continued to proceed predominantly to a decision even when only merits appeals are considered: 22 of 32 closed appeals (69%) were decided, while ten (31%) were withdrawn. Standalone revocation appeals remained more likely to end without an appellate judgment: nine of 13 (69%) were withdrawn, against four final decisions (31%). #### 6. Withdrawal rates by industry in appeals on infringement actions ##### 6.1 All appeals under Rule 220.1 RoP The position also varies by patented technology on the appellate level. Infringement-related appeals in the electricity sector form the largest category of closed appeals, of which 56% received a decision and 44% were withdrawn. Human necessities followed the same distribution. Appeals concerning performing operations or transporting resulted in a decision in 77% of concluded proceedings, compared with 67% in physics-related cases. Chemistry or metallurgy and mechanical engineering each showed an even split between decisions and withdrawals. Both fixed constructions and textiles and paper had one concluded appeal and remain limited for the purposes of analysis. ##### 6.2 Appeals under Rule 220.1 RoP concerning findings on the merits The largest shift is visible within the electricity sector when considering only appeals on the merits. Although 56% of all relevant closed infringement appeals in that sector reached a decision, the merits-only cases include 67% withdrawn and 33% decided appeals. There is no comparable change in every technology group. In human necessities, 56% of merits appeals were decided, as were 63% in performing operations or transporting. Two thirds of those concerning physics and chemistry or metallurgy ended by withdrawal. Mechanical engineering was evenly divided, and one appeal related to fixed constructions was withdrawn. #### 7. Discussion and conclusions As the UPC case load continues to increase, withdrawal has remained a common conclusion to first instance infringement litigation. Proceedings seeking provisional measures, by contrast, generally receive a judicial order, while standalone revocation actions stay relatively balanced. That distinction becomes more informative when the forum and technology are considered together. Munich, Mannheim and Hamburg continue to see a predominance of withdrawals in infringement actions; cases in Paris and Milan more often end in decisions. Cases within the field of electricity tend to end with a settlement, whereas cases involving performing operations, fixed constructions and mechanical engineering more often reach a decision. The appellate analysis adds further qualifications. Decisions are the more common endpoint of Rule 220.1 RoP appeals taken as a whole, but the balance is much closer when only appeals on the merits are considered. Appeals on infringement actions of the latter category have more often been withdrawn than decided, while procedural appeals are often decided. Appeals concerning provisional measures have generally resulted in a final decision. In general, the useful question is therefore not simply whether an appeal has ended, but whether it has produced a renewed legal analysis of the first instance findings. These findings will be addressed in the next month’s edition of HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER’s UPC Statistics. **Data Note** *The statistics are based on HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER's internal database of publicly available UPC records as of 19 October 2026. Comparisons with May 2026 draw on the earlier withdrawal rates* [*findings*](https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail/statistics-on-the-unified-patent-court-withdrawal-rates-may-2026)*. Percentages follow the rounding used in the source figures, and rates for concluded proceedings exclude pending actions. The divisional analysis of provisional injunctions excludes anti-anti-suit and anti-interim licence injunctions; the Central Division figures omit one revocation action brought elsewhere. Industry groups follow the patent classifications used in the underlying dataset.* --- 1. [^](https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail#ref-ftn1) Percentages are rounded. --- 1. [^](https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/detail#ref-ftn1) The matter at the Local Division Paris with case number UPC\_CFI\_238/2024 between *Photon Wave Co., Ltd. v Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.*