Häfele v Kunststoff (UPC_CFI_442/2024)

• Häfele brought an application for provisional measures against Kunststoff for alleged infringement of its patent relating to height adjustable cabinet legs and tools (EP 051).
• In November 2021, Häfele had brought an action for an injunction before the Düsseldorf Regional Court in relation to another patent (EP 603) in the same patent family as the patent in suit. Those proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of EPO opposition proceedings. After the opposition proceedings, EP 603 was upheld with restrictions so the Düsseldorf Regional Court scheduled a hearing for May 2025.
• In these UPC proceedings, the Munich LD refused the preliminary injunction, finding that the weighing of interests did not favour grant. Even though the court had decided that it was more likely than not that that the attacked tools were a direct infringement and the attacked height adjustable legs an indirect infringement, Häfele's interests in obtaining a preliminary injunction did not outweigh Kunststoff's interest in remaining free to continue its actions until a decision on the merits. The court noted that Häfele could reasonably be expected to wait for the decision in the main proceedings.
• Despite its finding on the balance of interests, the Munich LD accepted that Häfele had acted with urgency in bringing its provisional measures application because the application was filed shortly after unitary effect was registered. However, its swift action did not imply necessity: the provisional measures must be objectively urgent, which they were not.
• Häfele relied upon the earlier Düsseldorf Regional Court proceedings to try to establish urgency in these proceedings. The Munich LD did not accept this, noting that those proceedings related to different property rights and the urgency or long duration of those national proceedings had no bearing on the UPC proceedings. The court decided that the failure of Häfele to enforce its intellectual property rights before the Düsseldorf Regional Court should not be detrimental to Kunststoff.
• The Munich LD explained that, given the balance of interests did not justify granting a preliminary injunction, validity did not need to be decided. However, it did express some doubts about the novelty of the patent.

This analysis is based on a machine translation of a decision not available in English.