Outcome Category

Partially Granted

at Munich (DE) Central Division - Section

3 partially granted decisions from Munich (DE) Central Division - Section.

Partially Granted Decisions

3 cases | Page 1 of 1

patent partially granted · Nov 20, 2025

BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-000228

This UPC decision addresses a revocation action concerning a patent for specialized lignocellulosic fasteners. The court delivered key legal principles regarding inventive step, stressing that assessments must not be made retrospectively based on post-grant knowledge. Crucially, the ruling established that if the claimant voluntarily limits its attack scope (by not challenging certain claims), this limitation is binding on both the defendant and the court. Consequently, the patent was partially revoked in the specified member states.

patent partially granted · Oct 22, 2024

Dehns v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · App_47172/2024

This UPC Order addressed a request by Dehns, a representative firm, seeking access to all documents in an ongoing revocation action (Sanofi-Aventis v Amgen). The Court clarified the scope of Rule 262.1(b) RoP, distinguishing between 'written pleadings and evidence' and other administrative or formal documents. While granting Dehns access to the core case materials, the Court rejected requests for non-substantive documentation, setting a clear boundary on public transparency rights in UPC proceedings.

patent partially granted · Oct 22, 2024

Dehns v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · App_47154/2024

This UPC Order addressed a request by Dehns (a representative firm) to access documents from concluded revocation and counterclaim proceedings involving Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Amgen, Inc. The Court confirmed that while the general principle favors public access after a decision is rendered, the scope of access must strictly adhere to 'written pleadings and evidence' as defined in Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Consequently, Dehns was granted access to relevant core documents but was denied access to administrative or formal procedural documents.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a similar IP matter?

Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.

Consult our team →