Raimund Beck Nageltechnik v BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners (CFI, 21 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 21 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_714/2025), the Munich Central Division partially revokes BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners’ European patent with unitary effect EP 4 283 140, relating to a wooden fastening element, on the revocation action of Raimund Beck Nageltechnik: claim 1 as granted lacks novelty, but the patent is maintained in the form of auxiliary request I, with unchallenged claims 3, 4, 6 and 7 unchanged.

The decision states two useful rules, set out in its headnotes: a device claim defined by structural features is anticipated by a device having all those features and suitable for the claimed purpose, even if it does not achieve the technical effects described but not claimed, and a clerical error in the prior art is not obvious where the literal reading is not far-fetched for the skilled person.

Facts and procedure

The revocation action, filed on 5 August 2025, targeted claims 1, 2, 5 and 8 to 11 for added matter, lack of novelty and lack of inventive step. An opposition between the same parties is pending before the EPO, with oral proceedings set for 23 September 2026 (paragraph 7). The proprietor defended the patent as granted and by seven auxiliary requests. The hearing took place on 16 June 2026 and the value in dispute is set at EUR 500,000 (paragraph 140).

Claim 1 covers a fastening element made of wood or wood-based materials, consisting of a shaft and a tapering region formed by a conically tapering segment and a segment forming the point, whose side faces stand at an angle of 65 to 110°. Auxiliary request I adds a taper of the conical segment of between 5 and 20° relative to the longitudinal axis.

The applicable law

The court rules on validity under Art. 65 UPCA, within the limits of the requests (Art. 76(1) UPCA), and limits the patent by amending the claims where the grounds for revocation affect only part of it (Art. 65(3) UPCA and Art. 138(3) EPC). The grounds relied on fall under Arts. 54, 56, 123(2) and 138(1) EPC, the claim being construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol.

Question

Is claim 1 novel over D1 (EP 4 027 026, prior art under Art. 54(3) EPC), and is auxiliary request I, which specifies the taper of the segment, valid?

Decision

Added matter is rejected, since the disputed feature is supported by the figures and description (paragraphs 43 to 47), and priority is validly claimed (paragraph 49). Claim 1 as granted is, however, anticipated by D1, which discloses all its structural features: the function of the conical segment, which is not claimed, need not be disclosed there, as the nail of D1 is suitable for the claimed purpose (paragraphs 56 to 66, especially paragraph 64).

Auxiliary request I is novel: D1 discloses a taper of 5 to 20° neither explicitly nor implicitly, and it could only be reached by arbitrarily combining preferred values (paragraph 88). Reading « minimum shaft diameter » as a clerical error for « structural diameter » is rejected (paragraph 85). Clarity is not examined, since Art. 84 EPC is not a ground for revocation and any lack of clarity stems from the granted claims (paragraphs 74 and 75). Inventive step is acknowledged starting from D5, nothing prompting the skilled person towards the claimed solution (paragraphs 99 to 132). The auxiliary requests filed on 5 May 2026 were not admitted, their late filing being justified neither by the Opposition Division’s preliminary opinion of 12 December 2025 nor by the absence of delay (paragraph 135). The order partially revokes the patent insofar as it goes beyond auxiliary request I, claims 3, 4, 6 and 7 remaining unchanged, dismisses the action for the rest, orders the proprietor to bear 70% of the costs and the claimant 30% (paragraph 139), and sets the value in dispute at EUR 500,000, corresponding to a ceiling on recoverable costs of EUR 56,000 (paragraph 140).

Key points for practice

• A purely structural device claim is anticipated even if the prior art does not achieve the effects described but not claimed.
• The clarity of an auxiliary request is reviewed only as regards amendments made to the granted claims.
• Auxiliary requests filed late in reaction to the EPO’s preliminary opinion are excluded if they could have been filed earlier.
• Practical point: a proprietor should file its auxiliary requests with its defence to the revocation action, and at the latest upon the Opposition Division’s preliminary opinion in parallel proceedings.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

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

Rules of Procedure

Rules 17.3, 30, 42, 50.2, 104(j) and 118.5

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, Art. 56, Art. 69, Art. 84, Art. 123(2), Art. 138

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

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

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Fujifilm v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 January 2025, Seoul Viosys v expert, Court of Appeal, 5 November 2025, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Pari Pharma v Philips, Milan Central Division, 27 November 2025, Fisher & Paykel v Flexicare, Milan Central Division, 10 April 2026, Michelin v Goodyear, Paris Local Division, 16 April 2026, Hefei Xinhu v Grundfos, Court of Appeal, 27 May 2026, Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 2 June 2026

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.