Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH v. Baussmann Collated Fasteners GmbH, UPC CFI Munich Central Division, 21 July 2026, Case no. UPC_CFI_714/2025
Headnotes
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.
A copy of the Decision (in German) can be read here.
