Short Summary
Wittenstein SE brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court against Vestas Wind Systems A/S concerning European Patent EP 4 226 039 B1, directed at a wind turbine power transmission system. The court partially revoked the patent in respect of claims 21 and 22 but maintained it as amended according to the Defendant's auxiliary request 1. The court also addressed important headnotes on the interpretation of entitlement under Article 138(1)(e) EPC and the treatment of dependent claims in stand-alone revocation actions.
Detailed Summary
On 12 June 2025, Wittenstein SE filed a revocation action in the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court against Vestas Wind Systems A/S in relation to European Patent EP 4 226 039 B1, titled "Wind turbine power transmission system." The patent, based on international application WO 2022/073571 filed on 23 July 2021, claimed priority from Danish patent application DK PA202070677 of 6 October 2020, and was granted with mention published on 18 September 2024. Wittenstein had also filed a notice of opposition at the European Patent Office, where the Opposition Division maintained the patent in amended form corresponding to the Defendant's auxiliary request 1, though that decision had not yet become legally binding.
The patent concerned a wind turbine with a gear system comprising a fixed ring gear, an input member with radially movable tooth segments, and a central output member with an eccentric profile. Wittenstein pursued multiple grounds of revocation, including attacks based on prior art documents (D1 through D20), insufficiency of disclosure, and entitlement under Article 138(1)(e) EPC. Wittenstein argued that it was a co-inventor or successor in title to a co-inventor of the patent, and that the Defendant was therefore not entitled to the patent. Vestas contested these arguments, asserting that Wittenstein had failed to establish that the proprietor had no rights at all to the patent.
On the entitlement ground, the court held that Article 138(1)(e) EPC requires that the proprietor have no rights to the patent whatsoever, and that the burden of presentation and proof lies with the claimant. It was not sufficient for Wittenstein to demonstrate that it had rights to parts of the subject-matter disclosed, such as being a co-inventor or successor in title to a co-inventor. The court also addressed the treatment of dependent claims, holding that they are part of the patent and may serve as fall-back positions in revocation actions. In a stand-alone revocation action, where no infringement claim has been brought, a claimant may have a legitimate interest in having the validity of dependent claims assessed, and the court has discretion to decide on them based on the circumstances of the case.
The court disregarded several arguments submitted by Wittenstein in its Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence to the Application to amend the patent dated 12 January 2026 as late-filed, including preliminary remarks, arguments on auxiliary requests 1 and 2, arguments on D20, and arguments on the entitlement issue. Vestas's further requests to disregard late-filed attacks and arguments were dismissed.
In its final decision, the court revoked the patent in part in respect of claims 21 and 22, but maintained it as amended by auxiliary request 1. Wittenstein was ordered to bear 90% of Vestas's legal costs, while Vestas was ordered to bear 10% of Wittenstein's legal costs, reflecting the partial success of both parties. The ceiling for recoverable representation costs was set at EUR 56,000, as agreed by the parties. The decision was delivered by Presiding Judge and Judge-Rapporteur András Kupecz, Legally Qualified Judge Daniel Severinsson, and Technically Qualified Judge Kerstin Roselinger, and was read out in open court on 2 September 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Court of Appeal. Understanding the court's reasoning in Wittenstein SE vs Vestas Wind Systems A/S is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.