Kunststoff KG Nehl v Häfele (CFI, 18 April 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 18 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_526/2024, ORD_18972/2025), Judge-rapporteur Kupecz of the Munich Central Division prepared the oral hearing in the revocation action brought by Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. against Häfele SE & Co. KG concerning EP 3 767 151. He set the value in dispute at EUR 500,000 (ceiling for recoverable costs: EUR 56,000), limited the examination of the 80 auxiliary requests, and disregarded a new attack and part of the rejoinder. The order gives a useful benchmark for the number of auxiliary requests a panel will entertain.

Question

May the patentee file 80 conditional auxiliary requests, and may the claimant raise a new inventive step attack in its reply?

Decision

Eighty requests are not a reasonable number: parallel proceedings do not justify it, the technology is of limited complexity and the lack of a clear hierarchy makes preparation unduly difficult. Rejecting the application to amend as a whole would, however, go too far: the panel will deal with the requests in the order filed until a reasonable number is reached, in all likelihood up to 10, Häfele may limit or re-order them until 7 May 2025. In the judge’s provisional view, the attack based on D16, which could and should have been raised in the statement for revocation, will be disregarded, whether Rule 263 or Rule 9.2 applies. Parts I to III of the rejoinder, which reopen the debate on the patent as granted, will not be taken into account.

Key points for practice

• A new attack raised in reply must come with an explanation of why it could not have been raised earlier.
• Practical point: a patentee should itself rank a limited number of auxiliary requests, otherwise only the first ones filed will be considered.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 65(2) and (3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 30.1, 30.2, 32.3, 55 and 263

European Patent Convention

Art. 100 and Art. 138(1)

Case law cited

NJOY v Juul Labs, Paris Central Division, 5 November 2024, Tandem Diabetes Care v Roche Diabetes Care, Paris Central Division, 18 December 2024, DexCom v Abbott, Paris Local Division, 11 December 2024

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.