Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 12 February 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 2 December 2024, the panel of the Munich Local Division, in the infringement action on EP 3 215 288 brought by Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG against Vibrantz GmbH (UPC_CFI_114/2024) and in the joined counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_448/2024), ruled on several procedural applications. On review under Rule 333 RoP, it set aside the judge-rapporteur’s order of 25 September 2024 and allowed the action to extend to infringement of the process claim. It also extended the action and the counterclaim to Romania, which acceded to the Agreement on 1 September 2024.

Question

Is the late reliance on a process claim of the same patent against the same product an amendment of case requiring leave under Rule 263 RoP, and may the action be extended to Romania after its accession?

Decision

Following the narrow reading adopted by the Court of Appeal in its order of 21 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_456/2024), under which an amendment of case occurs when the nature or scope of the dispute changes, the panel held that adding a process claim against the same product is only a further ground supporting the same infringement allegation. Rules 13 and 9.2 RoP apply and the extension is allowed. As both parties wished validity and infringement to be decided for Romania, their respective Rule 263 applications were granted. Heraeus Electronics replaces Heraeus Precious Metals as defendant to the counterclaim, Vibrantz raising no objection. The timetable was reset (written procedure closing on 14 May 2025, oral hearing on 1 July 2025), the value in dispute was raised to EUR 1.25 million for each action, and leave to appeal was granted.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: adding a claim of the same patent against the same product may fall outside Rule 263 RoP, which eases the adjustment of infringement arguments during the proceedings.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 28, 43, 73(2)(b) and 76(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 13, 220.2, 224.1, 263, 305.1 and 333

Case law cited

OrthoApnea, Court of Appeal, 21 September 2024, UPC_CoA_456/2024

Related decisions

• Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz, 10 October 2025, decision on the merits of the action and the counterclaim.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.