UPC CFI 443/2024
Jul 29, 2024·EP3767151 Unitary patent · CABINET LEVELLING APPARATUS
Action number: ACT 43563/2024
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionProvisional measuresCategoryProvisional measures
- Parties
- Claimants
- Häfele SE & Co KGOperating co.
Representatives- Ulrich Blumenröder-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Busch-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Dropmannsupporting-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
Respondents- Kunststoff KG Nehl & CoOperating co.
Representatives- Hannes Jacobsen-CBH Rechtsanwälte
- Kammüller-CBH Rechtsanwälte
- Geschkesupporting-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Dilgsupporting-Dilg, Haeusler, Schindelmann
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technology
- Other fieldsConsumer products · Other consumer goods
- Mechanical engineeringMechanical elements
- Language
- German
- First decided
- Nov 25, 2024
- EPO Opposition
- Adolf Würth GmbH & Co. KGWithdrawn2024-07-05
- Kunststoff Kommanditgesellschaft Nehl & CoWithdrawn2025-04-03
| Preliminary injunction granted | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Ulrike Voß | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Daniel Voss | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Walter Schober | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Merja Heikkinen-Keinänen | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Häfele SE & Co KG (5 cases)·Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co (3 cases)
This dispute contains 2 other proceedings
- 2024-11-25Application for provisional measuresPublic
Summary: The Local Division Munich denied Häfele's application for provisional measures against Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co for alleged infringement of a patent relating to furniture fittings, finding that serious doubts about patent validity (inventive step, prior art D8) outweighed the likelihood of success and that the balance of interests did not favour an injunction.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Provisional measures – balance of interests
- Inventive step doubts
- Urgency in provisional measures (R.211.4 RoP)
- Patent claim interpretation
- Prosecution history as claim construction tool
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated | 2024-12-16 | Not public |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2024-11-25 | Not public |
| Measures_DecisionOutcome_Notification.pdf | 2024-11-25 | Not public |
| 2024-11-25 - Anordnung - Zurückweisung Antrag auf einstw. Maßnahmen | 2024-11-25 | Not public |
| 2024-11-25 - Anordnung - Zurückweisung Antrag auf einstw. Maßnahmen | 2024-11-25 | Public |
| Hearing Reference | 2024-11-22 | Not public |
| Hearing Reference | 2024-11-22 | Not public |
| summons | 2024-10-15 | Not public |
| Stellungnahme vom 14.10.2024 | 2024-10-14 | Not public |
| Anlage CBH 19 - D19 Zahnrad Wikipedia | 2024-10-14 | Not public |
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.
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)
RespondentLegal basis: Novelty / inventive step under EPCNote: 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
RespondentLegal basis: R. 211 RoP; R. 211.4 RoPNote: 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)
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211 RoPReason: 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
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC; prosecution history exclusion from claim constructionReason: 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.
Browse other cases on this principle.
- D8Novelty-destroying
- ITRE 20100070 A1 (D9)Novelty-destroying
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.