Short Summary
Häfele SE & Co KG sought interim measures from the Local Chamber Munich against Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 767 151 concerning a cabinet levelling apparatus. The court rejected the application, finding that prior art documents (D8 and D9) raised serious doubts about the validity of the patent, and that the balance of interests weighed against granting interim relief given the pending nullity action and opposition proceedings.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns an application under Rule 206 of the Rules of Procedure for interim measures filed by Häfele SE & Co KG (the applicant) against Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co (the respondent) before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court (case UPC_CFI_443/2024). The dispute relates to European Patent EP 3 767 151, titled 'Cabinet Levelling Apparatus' (Schranknivelliervorrichtung), which is based on a divisional application from EP 3 055 603 with a filing date of October 8, 2014 and four priority dates. The mention of grant was published on July 3, 2024, and the request for unitary effect was granted on July 12, 2024. The patent was in force at the time of the proceedings.
The patent claims an apparatus for adjusting a height-adjustable leg for supporting a cabinet, comprising a coupling with a driven member and a tool with a driving member and torque input. The characterizing feature is an electric motor as the torque input located between the handle and the driving member. The applicant asserted claims 1 and 6 against the respondent.
At the time of the proceedings, an opposition had been filed at the European Patent Office, and the respondent had also filed a nullity action at the Central Division, Munich section (ACT_51553/2024 UPC_CFI_526/2024). Neither proceeding had resulted in a decision.
The court addressed several key legal principles in its headnotes. It confirmed that Rule 8(4) and (5) RoP establishes a presumption that the registered proprietor is the actual proprietor, keeping proceedings free from disputes over substantive ownership. The court held that subclaims can contribute to the interpretation of the main claim but generally do not narrow its scope. Importantly, following the Local Chamber Düsseldorf's order of April 9, 2024 (Ortovox Sportartikel v. Mammut Sports), the court held that the grant file is not admissible interpretation material under Article 69 EPC, and a European patent cannot be interpreted based on text passages deleted from the description during prosecution.
On the balance of interests in interim proceedings, the court emphasized that the probability of a wrong decision and objective urgency must be considered, weighing whether it would be unreasonable for the applicant to wait until the conclusion of main proceedings. The court noted that under Rule 211(4) RoP, subjective urgency alone is insufficient; objective urgency is also required. Furthermore, doubts about the validity of the patent can weigh against ordering interim measures.
On the merits, the court found that prior art document D8 disclosed the relevant features of claims 1 and 6, including the feature that the motor is located between the handle and the driving member. The court reasoned that the examining division's understanding during prosecution was not indicative of the outcome of the nullity proceedings, and there were reasonable grounds supporting the interpretation that D8 directly and unambiguously disclosed the relevant features. The same analysis applied to D9 (ITRE 20100070 A1), which also disclosed a tool usable for height-adjustable support means with a motor arranged within the handle. The court also rejected the respondent's argument that the nut 30 in D8 could not form a coupling due to insufficient axial length.
Given the serious doubts about the validity of the patent raised by the prior art, combined with the pending nullity action and opposition, the court concluded that the balance of interests weighed against granting interim measures. The application was rejected, the applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, and the value in dispute was set at EUR 500,000. The order was issued on November 25, 2024, following an oral hearing on November 14, 2024. The presiding judge was Ulrike Voß, with legally qualified judges Dr. Daniel Voß and Dr. Walter Schober, and technically qualified judge Merja Heikkinen-Keinänen.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Häfele SE & Co KG vs Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOKvsHurom Co., Ltd. (UPC_CoA_409/2025); NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Three consolidated appeals before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 028 981, a patent for a juice extractor owned by Hurom Co., Ltd. The appeals challenged decisions of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement by NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd (Korea), and WARMCOOK's 'AUTO10' slow juicers. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of international jurisdiction under Article 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation, particularly regarding Turkey (a non-UPC contracting EPC member state), and held that mere access to the case file does not constitute entering an appearance.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KGvsEuropean Patent Office
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG challenged the European Patent Office's (EPO) decision rejecting its request for unitary effect for European Patent 3 327 608. The EPO had refused the request because the patent was not granted with the same claims for all 25 participating member states, as Malta could not be designated when the parent application was filed in 2005. The Unified Patent Court (Paris Central Division) dismissed the application, holding that the unitary effect must cover all participating member states at the time of grant and request, and that the refusal did not violate fundamental rights or non-discrimination principles.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH & OthersvsAmgen, Inc.
This order concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Sanofi and Regeneron in connection with their application for rehearing of a Court of Appeal decision that had rejected their revocation requests against Amgen's European Patent EP 3 666 797. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect, holding that the applicants failed to substantiate why suspensive effect should be granted and that the underlying decision rejecting the revocation requests did not alter the parties' legal situation, as the patent had remained valid throughout the appeal proceedings.
10xGenomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard CollegevsNanoString Technologies Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
BSN Medical GmbHvsBrightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, and Advancis Medical Nederland B.V.
This is a decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Munich, concerning the confirmation of a settlement agreement and a confidentiality order. BSN Medical GmbH had sued the defendants for infringement of European patents EP 3 033 058 and EP 3 831 350, but the parties subsequently settled the dispute. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered that the details of the settlement be treated confidentially, and ruled that each party bears its own costs as agreed in the settlement.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.