Decisions · EUIPO RCD invalidity, 2018–2026
Decision analytics
Computed live from 735 decisions matching your filter. Source: LLM-extracted from EUIPO PDFs (4,607 of 4,665 covered). Invalidation rate uses the merits-only denominator (excludes discontinued / inadmissible / restitutio).
Decision volume by year
Invalidity Division vs Board of Appeal. 2026 is partial.
Invalidation rate by year
Merits-only denominator. Excludes discontinued / inadmissible / restitutio.
Outcome distribution
Full controlled vocabulary (11 codes) from the LLM extraction, not the simplified API winner enum.
| Invalidated (total) | 552 | |
| Application rejected (holder wins) | 117 | |
| Application inadmissible | 26 | |
| Appeal dismissed | 16 | |
| Appeal upheld (reversal) | 14 | |
| Appeal inadmissible | 7 | |
| Other | 2 | |
| Restitutio refused | 1 |
Top legal grounds invoked
PDF-granular norms — Article 25(1)(b) splits into Art 6/7 individual-character + novelty when both are argued.
Top representatives — applicant side
Full leaderboard →Ordered by win rate (desc), then case count. Min 5 cases. Firm names normalized.
| Firm | Cases | Invalidated | Rejected | Win rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KBZ Żuradzki Barczyk & Wspólnicy Adwokaci i Radcy Prawni Sp. k. | 22 | 22 | 0 | 100% |
| Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB | 8 | 8 | 0 | 100% |
| A.BRE.MAR. S.R.L. | 8 | 8 | 0 | 100% |
| Patentanwälte Gierlich & Pischitzis Partnerschaft mbB | 8 | 8 | 0 | 100% |
| Arcade & Asociados | 7 | 7 | 0 | 100% |
| Lichtnecker & Lichtnecker | 6 | 6 | 0 | 100% |
| Metida | 40 | 39 | 1 | 98% |
| Tong Yang SLU | 25 | 24 | 1 | 96% |
| Merx Patentes y Marcas, S.L.P. | 45 | 43 | 2 | 96% |
| Arpe Patentes y Marcas, S.L. | 15 | 14 | 1 | 93% |
| Valet Patent Services | 9 | 8 | 1 | 89% |
| Intermark Patentes y Marcas, S.L.P. (also trading as Lidermark Patentes y Marcas) | 6 | 5 | 1 | 83% |
Top representatives — holder side
Full leaderboard →Win = invalidity application rejected (the design survived).
| Firm | Cases | Defended | Lost (invalidated) | Win rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LHR Rechtsanwälte Lampmann, Haberkamm Rosenbaum & Partner mbB | 7 | 7 | 0 | 100% |
| Bomhard IP, S.L. | 8 | 5 | 3 | 63% |
| KBZ Żuradzki Barczyk & Wspólnicy Adwokaci i Radcy Prawni Sp. k. | 6 | 3 | 3 | 50% |
| Sakellarides Law Offices | 6 | 2 | 4 | 33% |
| Arpe Patentes y Marcas, S.L. | 10 | 3 | 7 | 30% |
| Intermark Patentes y Marcas, S.L.P. (also trading as Lidermark Patentes y Marcas) | 9 | 2 | 7 | 22% |
| A.BRE.MAR. S.R.L. | 11 | 2 | 9 | 18% |
| IntellectPol IP Law Firm | 7 | 1 | 5 | 17% |
| H&A | 6 | 1 | 5 | 17% |
| Rolim, Mietzel, Wohlnick & Calheiros LLP | 8 | 1 | 7 | 13% |
| Metida Law Firm Zaboliene and Partners | 8 | 1 | 7 | 13% |
| Eurochina Intellectual Property | 13 | 1 | 11 | 8% |
Prior-art type intelligence
Full intelligence →What types of prior art actually kill RCDs? Web disclosure is the dominant killer — and the EUIPO API never surfaces it. Decision-level counts.
| Prior-art type | Decisions | In invalidations | Kill rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| ●Web disclosure | 383 | 313 | 82% |
| Registered RCD | 135 | 100 | 74% |
| National design | 132 | 105 | 80% |
| Patent | 72 | 51 | 72% |
| Prior use | 24 | 12 | 50% |
| Utility model | 12 | 11 | 92% |
| Catalog | 10 | 9 | 90% |
| Other | 10 | 3 | 30% |
| Publication | 2 | 1 | 50% |
| Trade mark | 1 | 1 | 100% |
Top rapporteurs (Board of Appeal)
Full leaderboard →Named decision-leads on BoA panels. Concentrated — 5 individuals drive most cases.
Top applicant countries
Where invalidity challengers come from.
| CN — China | 735 cases |