Häfele SE & Co v Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co (CFI, 25 November 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 25 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_443/2024), made after the hearing of 14 November 2024, the Munich Local Division (panel 2, presided over by U. Voß) ruled on Häfele SE & Co KG’s application for provisional measures against Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co, based on the unitary patent EP 3 767 151 (cabinet levelling apparatus). It accepted Häfele’s standing and found infringement more likely than not, but stated at the outset of its reasons that the balance of interests leads to the conclusion that provisional measures are not necessary.

The interest of the order lies in its headnotes: urgency is also assessed objectively, having regard to the possibility of proceedings on the merits, and doubts on validity may weigh in the balance. The application was dismissed, Häfele bears the costs and the value in dispute was set at EUR 500,000.

Facts and procedure

The patent in suit is a divisional of EP 3 055 603, its grant was published on 3 July 2024 and unitary effect registered. An opposition is pending before the EPO and a revocation action is pending before the Munich Central Division (UPC_CFI_526/2024). Since November 2021 Häfele has also been suing, before the national courts in Düsseldorf, for infringement of the parent patent and a German utility model. It sought injunctions for seventeen states against three accused embodiments (two tools and furniture feet) and proposed a value of EUR 500,000, Nehl sought dismissal and, in the alternative, security.

The applicable law

Provisional measures fall under Art. 62 UPCA and Rule 211 RoP: the court must be satisfied with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant is entitled to commence proceedings and that the patent is infringed, and must weigh the parties’ interests. Claim construction follows Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol. Standing rests on Art. 47(1) UPCA and Rule 8.4 RoP, under which registration creates a presumption of ownership.

Question

Where infringement of a recently granted patent is likely, are provisional measures necessary in light of the balance of interests, objective urgency and doubts on validity?

Decision

On admissibility, registration creates a presumption of ownership, a challenge to the transfer being irrelevant in these proceedings (Rules 8.4 and 8.5), the application is sufficiently specific, the court remaining free to word the measures. On construction, dependent claims do not narrow the main claim and merely illustrate embodiments. The grant file is generally not material for interpretation, and a passage deleted from the description cannot be used to construe the claim, following the Ortovox order of the Düsseldorf Local Division (section III). The court read « gear », the complementary design and the motor position broadly, and held that the combination of the accused embodiments falls within claim 1 and that the tools fall within claim 6 (section V).

The headnotes describe the balancing exercise: it takes account of the risk of a wrong decision and of objective urgency, proceedings on the merits being the rule and summary proceedings the exception, the question is whether it is unreasonable for the applicant to wait for the decision on the merits, Rule 211.4 denies relief to an applicant who has not acted diligently, but diligence alone does not justify relief, doubts on validity may stand in the way of measures. Direct infringement by the tool and foot combination, and indirect infringement by offering the tools, are likely. Base feet sold on their own, usable without the patented tool, are not covered (section VI).

Applying those principles, the division held that Häfele could reasonably wait for a decision on the merits, which could have been expected in the second half of 2025. No exceptional harm was shown: about 750 tools sold by Nehl against about 3,600 by Häfele, tools incompatible with competing feet, and a lock-in effect alleged at the hearing but not proved, difficulties in calculating damages and market confusion, put forward in abstract terms, were not enough. Weight was also given to Nehl’s presence on the market for many years, the divisional patent having been granted only in July 2024, some ten years after filing. Häfele acted diligently, on 26 July 2024, but that does not create objective urgency, and the length of national proceedings on other rights of the same family is irrelevant. Finally, serious doubts as to novelty over EP 0 904 899 and ITRE 20100070 also weighed against relief. The application was dismissed, Häfele was ordered to bear the costs and the value in dispute was set at EUR 500,000.

Key points for practice

• Registration is enough to establish standing in provisional proceedings, disputes over the transfer belonging to a different debate.
• A passage of the description deleted during prosecution cannot be used to construe the claim.
• The Munich Local Division requires objective urgency: having acted quickly is not in itself enough to justify provisional measures.
• Practical point: even where infringement is likely, the applicant must show that waiting for the decision on the merits would be unreasonable, especially where validity is challenged in parallel.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 25, 26, 47(1), 62 and 73

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.4, 8.5, 206 and 211

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and its Protocol, Art. 70

Case law cited

Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox Sportartikel, Düsseldorf Local Division, 9 April 2024, NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox Sportartikel, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Valeo Electrification v Magna PT, Düsseldorf Local Division, 31 October 2024, Hand Held Products v Scandit, Munich Local Division, 27 August 2024, Novartis v Celltrion, Düsseldorf Local Division, 6 September 2024, CJEU, 28 April 2022, C-44/21, Phoenix Contact v Harting

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.