UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 714/2025

Oct 9, 2025·EP4283140 Unitary patent · FASTENING ELEMENT MADE OF WOOD AND/OR WOODEN MATERIALS

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent partly revoked)
Action
Revocation
Category
Main revocation action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich CD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Mechanical elements
Language
German
First decided
Jul 21, 2026
EPO Opposition
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Munich CDLockedLocked
Judge András KupeczLockedLocked
Judge Thomas AdockerLockedLocked
Judge Beate SchenkLockedLocked

At the UPC: Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH (3 cases)·BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH (5 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CFI 3019/2026

1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CoA 160/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich CD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-07-21
    RevocationPublic

    Summary: The European patent with unitary effect EP 4 283 140 B1 was partially declared invalid, limited to Auxiliary Request I (with claims 3, 4, 6 and 7 remaining in their granted form). The infringement action was otherwise dismissed. The defendant bears 70% of the costs and the claimant bears 30%.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Novelty of a device claim defined by structural features
    • Whether a device claim limited to structural features is restricted to performing a specific function
    • Obvious typographical error in prior art
Documents
Show all 167 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-08-21Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-21Not public
Receipt2026-08-21Not public
Cover sheet2026-08-21Not public
Application Respondent2026-08-21Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-08-21Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-08-21Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-08-21Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-08-21Not public
Exhibit Applicant2026-08-21Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • A device claim defined by structural features is not limited to the device performing a specific function; if prior art discloses a device fulfilling all structural features and suitable for the claimed purpose, novelty is lacking even if not all technical effects are realized in the same way

    RespondentLegal basis: Novelty assessment under UPC patent law
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The prior art contains an obvious typographical error such that the relevant term should be read differently, preserving novelty

    ClaimantLegal basis: Interpretation of prior art disclosures