UPC CFI 443/2024

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)

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

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.

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

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

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.