2026-07-21 - CD Munich - Raimund Beck Nageltechnik v. Baussmann Collated Fasteners - UPC_CFI_714/2025

1. A device claim defined by structural features is not, as a rule, limited to the device performing a specific function. For the purposes of assessing the novelty of such a claim, this means that if the prior art discloses a device which fulfils all the structural features of the claim and is at the same time suitable for the purpose specified in the claim, the claim lacks novelty, even if not all the technical effects of the claimed device described in the patent at issue but not claimed are realised in the same way in the prior art. 2. There is no obvious typographical error in the prior art if, from the perspective of a person skilled in the art, it does not seem far-fetched that a particular term is in fact intended in the sense in which it is worded, and it is not immediately apparent to the person skilled in the art that there is a typographical error and that something other than what is stated is intended.

The Munich Central Division partially revoked a unitary patent in a standalone revocation action, holding claim 1 as granted anticipated by Art. 54(3) EPC prior art and maintaining the patent in the form of the first auxiliary request. Its first headnote states the governing rule for device claims: a claim defined exclusively by structural features is as a rule not limited to the device performing a particular function, so novelty falls where the prior art discloses all structural features in a device that is also suitable for the purpose recited in the claim — even if the unclaimed technical effects described in the patent are not achieved in the same way. The second headnote sets a demanding threshold for reading an obvious clerical error into a prior-art document: none exists where it does not appear far-fetched to the skilled person that the term is meant as written and the error is not immediately apparent. Applying the settled rule that dimensions are generally not directly and unambiguously derivable from schematic figures, the panel held the conicity range of the auxiliary request neither explicitly nor implicitly disclosed, and rejected the inventive-step attacks for want of any pointer or motivation. Added matter, priority and clarity objections all failed, and costs were apportioned 70/30 to reflect the substantial degree of revocation.