Beck Fastening v BAUSSMANN (CFI, UPC_CFI_3019/2026, 27 October 2026)

Date	27 October 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
Type of action	Other
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_3019/2026; UPC_CFI_714/2025; UPC_CFI_3020/2026
Registry reference	UPC-CFI-0003019/2026
Parties	Beck Fastening GmbH v. BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH
Language	German

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 1 November 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 27 October 2026, issued in German (UPC_CFI_714/2025, UPC_CFI_3019/2026 and UPC_CFI_3020/2026, EP 4 283 140), the Munich Central Division rules on cross-applications for cost assessment following the decision of 21 July 2026 that partially revoked the patent and allocated costs 70% to the defendant and 30% to the claimant (value EUR 500,000, ceiling EUR 56,000). The parties having agreed on the amounts, the claimant owes EUR 9,458.61 (30% of EUR 31,528.69) and the defendant EUR 37,212.92 (70% of EUR 53,161.31), within four weeks; each party bears its own costs of the cost-assessment proceedings.

Provisions applied

UPC Agreement: Article 69
Rules of Procedure: Rules 150, 151, 156.2, 156.3, 157 and 221.1
Case law cited: Hanshow v VusionGroup (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_618/2024, 6 June 2025).

Related decisions

Munich Central Division, 21 July 2026, UPC_CFI_714/2025, Beck Fastening v BAUSSMANN: decision on the merits.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 1 November 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: Costs, Revocation action

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: German from the language of proceedings
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

UPC_CFI_3019/2026 official number
UPC_CFI_714/2025 official number
UPC_CFI_3020/2026 official number

Follow these proceedings

Parties

defendantBAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH6 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantBeck Fastening GmbHFollow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

21 July 2026 Raimund Beck Nageltechnik v BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners (CFI, 21 July 2026) Revocation Action · UPC_CFI_714/2025
La revendication 1 délivrée est antériorisée par D1, le brevet EP 4 283 140 est annulé en ce qu'il va au-delà de la requête subsidiaire I, jugée nouvelle et inventive, et l'action est rejetée pour le surplus.
27 October 2026 Beck Fastening v BAUSSMANN (CFI, UPC_CFI_3019/2026, 27 October 2026) Other · UPC_CFI_714/2025, UPC_CFI_3019/2026, UPC_CFI_3020/2026

What the record states

Nature of the act: Other
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division centrale de Munich fixe les frais remboursables après une révocation partielle, selon la répartition 70/30 décidée au fond, sur la base d’un accord des parties sur les montants.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 4 283 140 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Raimund Beck Nageltechnik v BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners (CFI, 21 July 2026) cited in this record

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 4 283 140`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Raimund Beck Nageltechnik v BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners (CFI, 21 July	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.