2025-11-20 - CD Munich - Baussmann Collated Fasteners v. Raimund Beck Nageltechnik - UPC_CFI_836/2024

GERMAN: 1. Bei der rechtlichen Bewertung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit ist stets im Blick zu behalten, dass vermieden werden muss, dass eine Erfindung in Kenntnis der Erfindung, also im Nachhinein, beurteilt wird. Dies gilt auch, wenn allgemeines Fachwissen herangezogen wird. Auch in einem solchen Fall ist es in der Regel erforderlich, dass die Fachperson einen Anlass hat, ausgehend vom Stand der Technik zu dem beanspruchten Gegenstand zu gelangen. 2. Wenn die Nichtigkeitsklägerin sich entscheidet, einen oder mehrere Ansprüche des Patents in der erteilten Fassung nicht anzugreifen, sind das Gericht sowie die Beklagte an diesen Klageumfang gebunden. ENGLISH: 1. When assessing the inventive step from a legal perspective, it should always be borne in mind that it must be avoided that an invention is assessed with knowledge of the invention, i.e. retrospectively. This also applies when common general knowledge is relied upon. Also in such a case, it is usually necessary for the person skilled in the art to have an incentive to arrive at the claimed subject matter based on the state of the art. 2. If the claimant in revocation action decides not to attack one or more claims of the patent as granted, the court and the defendant are bound to this scope of the action.

The Munich CD (Section) partially revoked a unitary patent on wooden nails for nail guns. The main request (tip angle >40°) had inventive step but claim 6 lacked novelty. Patent maintained under Auxiliary Request III (tip angle >60°). The court emphasized that hindsight must be avoided even when relying on common general knowledge — the skilled person still needs an incentive (Anlass) to arrive at the claimed solution. Knowledge about metal nails not automatically transferable to wooden nails. The court also held that when the revocation claimant limits the attack to certain claims, the court and defendant are bound to that scope.