Munich court sets new urgency yardstick for utility models alongside Unitary Patents

The dispute concerns magnetic buckles used in baby carriers and similar products. Wonderland Switzerland, part of the Taiwanese Wonderland group, is one of the largest international suppliers of baby and infant products. It sued Taiwanese buckle maker OsmaR and its Chinese affiliate Lian Yang over German utility model DE 20 2018 007 054. It protects a magnetic closure arrangement combining a mechanical latch with magnetic retention.

In a recent decision, the 7th Civil Chamber under presiding judge Oliver Schön, together with judges Katalin Tözsér and Florian Schweyer, confirmed a preliminary injunction issued on 10 September 2026 (case ID: 7 O 8916/26). The court found that the challenged buckles, as used for example in baby carriers distributed in Germany, infringe the utility model literally.

The defendants have already filed an appeal with the Higher Regional Court Munich (case ID: 6 U 2780/26 e). Parallel action at the UPC has been filed.

New urgency framework for utility models

The more far-reaching part of the judgment concerns the question of urgency. The utility model in suit was branched off from a European patent application that, in parallel, led to the grant of Unitary Patent EP 3 957 204 on 22 July 2026. The claims of the utility model are identical to those of the patent. Wonderland branched off the DE 054 five days after grant of EP 204. Registration followed on 4 August 2026, and the PI application reached the court on 2 September 2026.

The Munich judges held that in such a constellation the registration of the utility model triggers a fresh one-month urgency period.

If an applicant opts for a Unitary Patent, they cannot use that right to obtain preliminary relief before German national courts. They would instead be referred to the UPC. In the view of the Munich judges, there is therefore a legitimate interest in filing a parallel utility model in order to obtain national preliminary relief in Germany. The grant of the Unitary Patent constitutes an external trigger that according to the judges gives the protected subject matter particular weight.

Double one-month deadline

Therefore, the court ruled that at least where a Unitary Patent is granted and a utility model with identical claims is branched off in a timely manner, specifically within one month of grant, the registration of that utility model triggers a new urgency period. The one-month deadline for filing the PI application then starts running with the registration of the utility model.

The court thus effectively establishes a “double one-month deadline”. First, the branching off must take place within one month of patent grant. Then, upon registration of the utility model, a new one-month period begins for filing the PI application.

The court justifies this by pointing to the different territorial scope of UPC decisions compared to national rulings. A patent holder must be able to obtain preliminary relief limited to German territory. This is not possible via a Unitary Patent at the UPC. Branching off a utility model in parallel to a Unitary Patent therefore serves a legitimate purpose and does not amount to an artificial creation of urgency.

However, the court distinctively distinguished the current situation from the general case, in which a utility model can be branched off at any time up to ten years after the patent application. In this situation, the court expresses doubts as to whether such an act – lying entirely within the discretion of the rights holder – is even capable of triggering a new urgency period.

Validity and prior art

On validity, the chamber relied on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Phoenix Contact vs Harting, under which granted European patents enjoy a presumption of validity. The Munich court has previously extended this reasoning to utility models branched off from a European patent application with identical claims.

In September, the defendants had filed a cancellation request with the German Patent and Trademark Office. They relied on prior art, including a 2007 international patent application for a magnetic buckle with mechanical locking and a US patent application from 2015.

The court found neither novelty-destroying nor sufficient to render the invention obvious. In particular, it held that the 2007 reference did not disclose the magnetic component as a separate element from the male closure component, while the 2015 reference deliberately aimed at reducing the number of components and gave the skilled person no incentive to add magnets.

On the move

Wonderland was represented by Munich based patent litigation boutique Pentarc. The team led by partner Jan Phillip Rektorschek included salary partners Julia Fischer, Tobias Baus, Verena Bertram and associate Laura Schmidt.

Patent attorneys Tim Oppermann, Yori Manzke, Maxi Thrum and Alexander Müller from Pfenning Meinig & Partner provided technical support. The patent attorney firm also acted for Wonderland in the filing process of the patent and utility model.

While relying on Bock Legal in the first PI, defendants OsmaR Buckle and Lian Yang Plastic retained BluePort Legal in the subsequent objection. Nora Keßler and Christoph Palzer led the case, assisted by associate Catinca Vidan. The team will move to Osborne Clarke’s Frankfurt office in mid-November. They will continue to represent the defendants in the appeal in the new firm.

On the patent attorney side, they worked together with Matthias Rathert, partner at Olbricht Patentanwälte.