UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: —

ACT_43563/2024

Einstweilige MaßnahmenEinstweilige MaßnahmenMunich LDApplication for provisional measures—
ÜbersichtEntscheidungenBegründungZitateDokumenteZeitverlauf
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Häfele SE & Co KG sought provisional measures against Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co before the Munich Local Division for alleged infringement of a patent relating to a motorised tool for adjusting height-adjustable furniture legs. The court denied the injunction, finding serious doubts about patent validity because prior art D8 (and D9) plausibly disclosed the key feature distinguishing the patent (motor positioned between handle and drive element), and rejecting the claimant's reliance on the EPO's different claim construction as inadmissible prosecution history. The balance of interests accordingly did not favour provisional relief.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Patent validity is doubtful in light of prior art D8 disclosing features 1.1 to 3.2.1 and 4 to 6 of claim 1, and possibly also feature 3.2.2 (motor positioned between handle and drive element)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Novelty / inventive step under EPC

    Hinweis: Court found serious doubts about inventive step/novelty of the asserted patent given D8's disclosure, meaning the balance of interests did not favour an injunction.

  • Balance of interests does not favour provisional injunction where there are serious doubts about patent validity and probability of erroneous decision is material

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 211 RoP; R. 211.4 RoP

    Hinweis: Court held the probability of error and the interests of defendant in not being subject to an erroneous injunction outweighed claimant's interests in interim protection.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Application for provisional measures for infringement of patent relating to furniture fittings (height-adjustable leg installation tool)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211 RoP

    Begründung: Court found serious doubts as to patent validity based on prior art D8 (and D9), which plausibly disclosed feature 3.2.2 (motor between handle and drive element); these doubts outweighed the likelihood of success and meant the balance of interests did not favour Häfele.

  • EPO Examining Division's view (expressed during third-party observation proceedings) that D8 did not disclose feature 3.2.2 settles the claim construction question

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC; prosecution history exclusion from claim construction

    Begründung: Court held that the EPO Examining Division's statement does not resolve doubts because it appeared to apply a different claim construction linked to a deleted passage in the description, and the EPO's view is not binding on the UPC in invalidity proceedings.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Prosecution history (Erteilungsakte) is generally not admissible claim construction material in UPC proceedingsSubclaims can inform but do not ordinarily narrow main claim interpretationDescription passages deleted during prosecution cannot serve as basis for broader claim interpretationBalance of interests in provisional measures must weigh probability of erroneous decision and objective urgencyMain proceedings are the rule; provisional measures with summary examination are the exception

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Herangezogener Stand der Technik
Zitierte Schriften und die Rolle, die sie gespielt haben.
  • D8Neuheitsschädlich
  • ITRE 20100070 A1 (D9)Neuheitsschädlich
Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The patent claimed a tool for installing height-adjustable furniture legs, with claim 1 requiring (inter alia) a motor positioned between the handle and the drive element (feature 3.2.2). The Munich Local Division held that D8's figures 1 and 2 plausibly disclose this feature: the housing (grip) extends axially beyond the motor, the rearmost part of the housing can reasonably be construed as the handle, and the motor is thus positioned between handle and drive element. The court rejected the EPO Examining Division's narrower construction (apparently based on a deleted description alternative) and held that prosecution history is generally inadmissible under Art. 69 EPC.