UPC CFI 836/2024
Dec 23, 2024·EP4019790 Unitary patent · NAIL FOR USE IN A NAIL SETTING DEVICE
Action number: ACT 67704/2024
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent partly revoked)ActionRevocationCategoryMain revocation action
- Parties
- Claimants
- BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Jochen Ewald Bühling-Krieger Mes & Graf von der Groeben
Respondents- Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Ralf Albrecht-Paul & Albrecht Patentanwälte PartG mbB
- Division
- Munich CD
- Technology
- Mechanical engineeringMechanical elements
- Language
- German
- First decided
- Jun 27, 2025
- Last decision
- Nov 20, 2025
| Patent revoked | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Munich CD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Ulrike Voß | Locked | Locked |
| Judge András Kupecz | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Beate Schenk | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH (5 cases)·Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH (3 cases)
1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
- 2025-11-20Revocation ActionPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Inventive step
- No retrospective assessment of inventive step
- Common general knowledge
- Scope of revocation action
- Auxiliary requests admissibility
- 2025-07-14Revocation ActionPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (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
- 2025-06-27Revocation ActionPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Case management – revocation action
- Interim conference
- Auxiliary requests
- 2025-05-26
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Revocation proceedings case management
- Patent amendment workflow R. 43 RoP
- Scope of revocation claim
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Order | 2025-11-20 | Public |
| Case closed | 2025-11-20 | Not public |
| Decision | 2025-11-20 | Not public |
| Decision | 2025-11-20 | Not public |
| Other Documents | 2025-10-16 | Not public |
| Interim-Procedure-Closure | 2025-08-13 | Not public |
| Summon-Oral-Hearing | 2025-08-13 | Not public |
| Terminsladung | 2025-08-13 | Public |
| Hearing-Dates | 2025-08-13 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-08-13 | Not public |
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.
Claims 1–4 and 6 of EP 4 019 790 in their granted form lack inventive step over prior art
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC; inventive stepNote: 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
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC; Headnote 1Note: 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
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 76(1) UPCA; Headnote 2Note: 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).
Main request (granted claims) should be maintained in full
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCReason: 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
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCReason: 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
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPCReason: Auxiliary Request II included independent claim 3 of the main request which was not allowable, making AUX II equally non-patentable.
Browse other cases on this principle.