Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 2 December 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 2 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_114/2024 and UPC_CFI_448/2024, ACT_13227/2024, CC_43919/2024), the Munich Local Division, on Heraeus Electronics’ application for panel review under Rule 333, set aside the judge-rapporteur’s order of 25 September 2024: extending the infringement action on EP 3 215 288 to indirect infringement of the process claim does not require leave under Rule 263. The order also allowed both the action and Vibrantz’s counterclaim for revocation to be extended to Romania, a party to the Agreement since 1 September 2024.

Question

Is relying on a further claim of the same patent against the same product an amendment of the case requiring leave under Rule 263?

Decision

No. Following the narrow reading of « amendment of case » adopted by the Court of Appeal in OrthoApnea, the panel held that adding a claim of the same patent against the same product is not an amendment. Only Rules 13 and 9.2 apply, for reasons of procedural economy and fairness. Both extensions to Romania were granted, Heraeus Electronics replaced Heraeus Precious Metals as defendant to the counterclaim (Rules 25.1, 42.2 and 305.1(c)), the timetable was reset and the value of the action and of the counterclaim was each raised to EUR 1.25 million. Leave to appeal was granted.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: before the Munich Local Division, adding a claim of the same patent against the same product during the proceedings falls under Rules 13 and 9.2 and needs no leave under Rule 263.
• A new accession to the Agreement (here Romania) can be brought into pending proceedings by extending both the action and the counterclaim.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 43, 73(2)(b) and 76(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 13, 25.1, 42.2, 263, 305.1(c) and 333

Case law cited

OrthoApnea, Court of Appeal, 21 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_456/2024, APL_44633/2024)

Related decisions

• Heraeus Precious Metals v Vibrantz, 25 September 2024, judge-rapporteur’s order set aside.

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.