UPC CFI 523/2025
Jun 12, 2025·EP4226039 Unitary patent · WIND TURBINE POWER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent partly revoked)ActionRevocationCategoryMain revocation action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Wittenstein SEOperating co.
Representatives- Simon Klopschinski-rospatt Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB
Respondents- Vestas Wind Systems A/SOperating co.
Representatives- Sebastian Ochs-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Martin Hackler-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Division
- Munich CD
- Technology
- Mechanical engineeringEngines, pumps, turbines · Mechanical elements
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Sep 2, 2026
- EPO Opposition
- Wittenstein SEAdmissible2025-06-18
| Patent revoked | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Munich CD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge András Kupecz | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Daniel Severinsson | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Kerstin Roselinger | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Wittenstein SE (2 cases)·Vestas Wind Systems A/S (2 cases)
This dispute contains 1 other proceedings
- 2026-09-02RevocationPublic
Summary: Munich Central Division decision (Panel 1, 2 Sep 2026) in the stand-alone revocation action Wittenstein SE v Vestas Wind Systems A/S concerning the unitary patent EP 4 226 039 (wind turbine gear system with radially movable tooth segments): novelty, inventive step and the entitlement ground (Art. 138(1)(e) EPC) fail, but dependent claims 21 and 22 are insufficiently disclosed because they contradict claim 19; the patent is revoked in part in respect of claims 21 and 22 and maintained as amended by auxiliary request 1 (those claims deleted); several of the claimant's rejoinder arguments are disregarded as late-filed; Wittenstein bears 90% and Vestas 10% of the other side's costs. Headnotes on the entitlement ground (proprietor must have no rights at all; co-inventorship insufficient) and on the legitimate interest in having dependent claims assessed in a stand-alone revocation action.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Art. 138(1)(e) EPC / Art. 60(1) EPC entitlement as a revocation ground: burden on the claimant, partial rights or co-inventorship insufficient (headnote 1)
- legitimate interest in assessing dependent claims in a stand-alone revocation action; dependent claims as fall-back positions (headnote 2, Fujifilm v Kodak, Rematec v Europe Forestry)
- sufficiency of disclosure of dependent claims contradicting the claim they depend on (Art. 65(3) UPCA)
- Wayback Machine evidence
- late-filed arguments disregarded (R. 9.2 RoP)
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-09-28 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-09-28 | Not public |
| Exhibit Respondent | 2026-09-28 | Not public |
| Exhibit Respondent | 2026-09-28 | Not public |
| Application Respondent | 2026-09-28 | Not public |
| Case closed | 2026-09-02 | Not public |
| Publication of decision | 2026-09-02 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-09-02 | Public |
| Communication | 2026-09-02 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-09-02 | Not public |
Dependent claims 21 and 22 contradict claim 19 (gearbox housing suspended from vs. integrated with the bearing housing) and are not sufficiently disclosed
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65(3) UPCA; Art. 83 EPCA claimant in a stand-alone revocation action may have a legitimate interest in having dependent claims assessed even if the independent claim is valid
ClaimantLegal basis: headnote 2; UPC_CoA_473/2025 Fujifilm v Kodak
Claim 1 lacks novelty or inventive step over the cited prior art
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 54, 56 EPCVestas is not entitled to the patent (Wittenstein's rights to parts of the subject-matter)
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(e), Art. 60(1) EPC (headnote 1)Late-filed rejoinder attacks (incl. D11+D15, entitlement section) should be considered
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 9.2 RoP