BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners v Raimund Beck Nageltechnik (CFI, 20 November 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 20 November 2025, the Munich Central Division ruled on BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners’ revocation action against EP 4 019 790, a unitary patent held by Raimund Beck Nageltechnik for a nail made predominantly of lignocellulosic material for use in nailing tools. The action succeeded in part: the patent, to the extent attacked, is revoked insofar as it goes beyond the subject matter of the third auxiliary request, claims 5 and 6 as granted, which were not attacked, remaining unchanged (paragraphs 125 to 127). The proprietor bears 70% of the costs.

The decision is notable for two principles: inventive step must not be assessed with hindsight, including through common general knowledge, and the scope of attack chosen by the revocation claimant binds both the court and the proprietor. It also confirms that a main request presented as a closed set of claims fails as a whole once one independent claim is not allowable.

Facts and procedure

The patent, arising from a divisional application, was granted on 1 May 2024 with unitary effect from 13 May 2024. The claimant attacked claims 1 to 4 and 7 to 13 as granted. The proprietor defended the patent with an amended main request, raising the tip angle from « more than 40° » to « more than 60° » (paragraphs 5 and 53), and eleven auxiliary requests. The amendment was admitted on 13 August 2025, at the hearing of 16 October 2025 the proprietor withdrew its requests to adapt the description.

The applicable law

The division had jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(d) and 33(4) UPCA (paragraphs 17 to 19). Validity was assessed under Art. 54, 56, 84, 123(2) and 138(1)(c) EPC, with construction under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol. Amendment of the patent falls under Rule 50.2.

Question

Is amended claim 1, requiring a tip angle of more than 60° for a lignocellulosic nail, clear, free of added matter, novel and inventive, and what of dependent claims 3 and 6?

Decision

The skilled person is a mechanical engineer experienced in joining technology with knowledge of materials science (paragraphs 35 and 36). An angle of more than 60° means an angle below 180°, a limit following from the notion of a conical tip: the claim is clear (paragraphs 40 and 53) and does not extend beyond the application as filed (paragraphs 54 to 58). Lignocellulosic material excludes metal nails (paragraphs 44 and 92).

Novelty of claim 1 was not disputed (paragraph 59), so the debate concerned inventive step. Starting from DE 371, the realistic starting point, the skilled person had no incentive to enlarge the tip angle. The arguments based on common general knowledge were rejected as hindsight (paragraphs 68 to 97), and the other prior art made no difference (paragraphs 98 to 101).

Claim 3 is novel, the attack based on a test being late and the angle not being clearly disclosed (paragraphs 103 and 105), but lacks inventive step: its two features solve separate problems without synergy, and each was obvious (paragraphs 106 to 112). The phenolic resin feature of claim 6 is disclosed in DE 371, which refers to the DIN 7707 standard to define synthetic resin compressed wood, a reference that allows the standard to be read together with the document without combining two writings. Failing that, it would be obvious (paragraphs 113 to 120). As the main request is a closed set of claims, it fails as a whole, as do auxiliary requests I and II, which retain claims 3 or 6 (paragraphs 121 to 123). The third auxiliary request, limited to claims 1 and 2 (90° tip angle), was allowed (paragraph 124). Since the claimant chose not to attack claims 5 and 6 as granted, the court and the proprietor are bound by that scope (paragraphs 126 and 127, Arts 65(3) and 76(1) UPCA). Costs were split 70% to the proprietor and 30% to the claimant, the value in dispute being EUR 500,000 and the ceiling for recoverable costs EUR 56,000 (paragraphs 128 and 129). The operative part partly revokes EP 4 019 790 for the seventeen participating Member States listed, beyond the third auxiliary request, with claims 5 and 6 as granted unchanged, otherwise dismisses the action, splits the costs 70% to 30% and sets the value at EUR 500,000. The panel was presided over by Judge Voß.

Key points for practice

• Inventive step normally requires a concrete pointer, starting from the prior art, towards the claimed subject matter. Common general knowledge cannot be used to get round the bar on hindsight.
• A revocation claimant that chooses not to attack certain claims as granted binds the court and the proprietor to that scope.
• Features juxtaposed without synergy are assessed separately for inventive step (paragraph 108).
• Practical point: new attacks based on tests should be raised in the first written pleadings, or they will be excluded as late (paragraph 103).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 32(1)(d), 33(4), 65(1) and (3), 69(2) and 76(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 13, 30, 42, 44, 50.2, 104, 118.5, 171 and 172

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, 56, 69, 84, 123 and 138

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 24(4), 71a and 71b

Case law cited

Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce, Court of Appeal, 5 November 2025, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), 13 May 2024 (UPC_CoA_1/2024), 3 March 2025 (UPC_CoA_523/2024) and 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024), Brita v Aquashield, Munich Local Division, 22 August 2025

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.