UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 836/2024

23. Dez. 2024·EP4019790 Einheitspatent · NAIL FOR USE IN A NAIL SETTING DEVICE

Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 67704/2024

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent teilweise nichtig)
Verfahrensart
Nichtigkeit
Kategorie
Hauptnichtigkeitsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Division
Munich CD
Richter
Technologie
  • Mechanical engineering
    Mechanical elements
Sprache
German
Erste Entscheidung
27. Juni 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
20. Nov. 2025
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Patent nichtigMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC37% (34/91)124
Munich CDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Ulrike VoßGesperrtGesperrt
Richter András KupeczGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Beate SchenkGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH (5 Verfahren)·Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH (3 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

1 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CoA 7/2026

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Munich CD·2024

Entscheidungen
  • 2025-11-20
    Revocation ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Munich Central Division partially revoked EP 4 019 790 B1 for 17 Member States in revocation proceedings brought by BAUSSMANN against Raimund Beck, upholding the patent only as amended per Auxiliary Request III (with claims 5 and 6 unchanged), and dismissing the remaining revocation claim; costs were split 70/30 in favour of the claimant.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Inventive step
    • No retrospective assessment of inventive step
    • Common general knowledge
    • Scope of revocation action
    • Auxiliary requests admissibility
  • 2025-07-14
    Revocation ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Munich Central Division (Section) issued a procedural order following an interim hearing (Rule 105.5 RoP) in a revocation action concerning EP 4 019 790. Key decisions: (1) value in dispute set at EUR 500,000; (2) admissibility of exhibit P&A 18 (a Board of Appeal decision on another patent) deferred to the oral hearing; (3) patent amendment workflow issue resolved; (4) cost ceiling of EUR 56,000 noted; (5) oral hearing scheduled for 16 October 2025.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • Interim hearing procedure under Rule 105.5 RoP
    • Value in dispute in revocation action
    • Admissibility of Board of Appeal decisions as exhibits
    • Patent amendment application workflow
  • 2025-06-27
    Revocation ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Procedural order of Munich Central Division (27 June 2025) in a revocation action concerning EP 4 019 790, scheduling an online interim conference via Cisco Webex for case management purposes and setting submission deadlines.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Case management – revocation action
    • Interim conference
    • Auxiliary requests
  • 2025-05-26
    Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Munich Central Division issued a procedural order in revocation proceedings (EP 4 019 790) requiring the parties to upload written submissions in the patent amendment workflow, and granting Baussmann leave to file a further reply on the scope of the counterclaim and the patent amendment request.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Revocation proceedings case management
    • Patent amendment workflow R. 43 RoP
    • Scope of revocation claim
Dokumente
Alle 192 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Order2025-11-20Öffentlich
Verfahren abgeschlossen2025-11-20Nicht öffentlich
Entscheidung2025-11-20Nicht öffentlich
Decision2025-11-20Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2025-10-16Nicht öffentlich
Interim-Procedure-Closure2025-08-13Nicht öffentlich
Summon-Oral-Hearing2025-08-13Nicht öffentlich
Terminsladung2025-08-13Öffentlich
Hearing-Dates2025-08-13Nicht öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-08-13Nicht öffentlich
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH brought a revocation action against Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH's EP 4 019 790 B1 (a nail for use in a nail-setting device). The Munich Central Division partially revoked the patent for 17 member states, finding the granted independent claims (and Auxiliary Requests I and II) lacking inventive step, while upholding Auxiliary Request III (claims 1 and 2) together with the unchallenged claims 5 and 6. Costs were apportioned 70% to the patent owner and 30% to the claimant.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Claims 1–4 and 6 of EP 4 019 790 in their granted form lack inventive step over prior art

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC; inventive step

    Hinweis: Munich Central Division accepted BAUSSMANN's challenge to the main request and Auxiliary Requests I and II, finding independent claims 1 and 3 (and dependent claims derived therefrom) obvious over the prior art.

  • Retrospective assessment (hindsight) must be avoided when determining inventive step, even when relying on common general knowledge

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC; Headnote 1

    Hinweis: Court accepted this principle and required the skilled person to have had a genuine incentive to arrive at the claimed subject matter from the prior art without benefit of hindsight.

  • Court and defendant are bound by the scope of the revocation action as defined by the claimant; non-attacked claims are immune

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 76(1) UPCA; Headnote 2

    Hinweis: Because BAUSSMANN chose not to attack claims 5 and 6 of the granted patent, those claims remained valid and the patent was maintained in amended form (Auxiliary Request III plus claims 5 and 6 unchanged).

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

  • Main request (granted claims) should be maintained in full

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

    Begründung: Claims 3 and 6 of the main request were found not patentable (lack of inventive step / other grounds), rendering the main request and Auxiliary Requests I and II non-allowable.

  • Auxiliary Request I is allowable

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

    Begründung: Auxiliary Request I contained claim 3 which was equivalent to granted claim 6 and was thus not patentable for the same reasons.

  • Auxiliary Request II is allowable

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

    Begründung: Auxiliary Request II included independent claim 3 of the main request which was not allowable, making AUX II equally non-patentable.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Inventive step assessment must avoid hindsight; the skilled person needs an incentive to arrive at the claimed subject matter from the prior artCommon general knowledge may be combined with prior art but the incentive requirement still appliesScope of revocation action is bounded by what the claimant attacks; non-attacked claims are insulatedPartial revocation: patent maintained in amended form (Auxiliary Request III) with claims 5 and 6 unchanged per Art. 65(3) UPCA

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.