Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 26 February 2025)
| Date | 26 February 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Munich (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic Order |
| Registry reference | ORD_9486/2025 |
| Parties | Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG, Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By procedural order of 26 February 2025, made in the infringement action (UPC_CFI_114/2024, ACT_13227/2024) and the joined counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_448/2024, CC_43919/2024), the Munich Local Division (Judges Zigann, presiding and rapporteur, Brinkman, Pichlmaier and Ashley) supplemented, by way of correction, the operative part of an order of 2 December 2024 and deferred until after the oral hearing its decision on a Rule 362 application. The dispute is between Heraeus Electronics and Heraeus Precious Metals and Vibrantz, over EP 3 215 288.
Question
Must the division rule before the oral hearing on an application for a finding that continuing the proceedings on the German part of the patent is barred by the res judicata effect of a Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) decision (Rule 362)?
Decision
No. An early decision could endanger the further conduct of the proceedings (Rule 363.2), the Court of Appeal being unlikely to rule before the hearing set for 1 July 2025, and both parties want a single hearing. The division therefore exercised its discretion to decide after the hearing, without addressing the merits of the objection. Separately, under Rule 353, the operative part of the order of 2 December 2024 was supplemented to replace Heraeus Precious Metals, defendant to the counterclaim, with Heraeus Electronics, as the reasons of that order had stated.
Key points for practice
- A Rule 362 application can be dealt with alongside the merits where hearing it separately, with a possible appeal, would threaten the timetable for the oral hearing.
- Practical point: a mismatch between the reasons and the operative part of an order is cured by an application for correction under Rule 353.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 73(2)(b)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 25.1, 42.2, 305.1(c), 353, 362 and 363.2
- Case law cited
- No UPC decision is cited.
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.
Going further
Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Proceedings
Parties
- claimantHeraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG13 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantHeraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic Order
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La division renvoie après l'audience principale sa décision sur la demande fondée sur la règle 362 et complète le dispositif de l'ordonnance du 2 décembre 2024 pour acter la substitution de la défenderesse reconventionnelle.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 215 288mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Heraeus Electronics (CFI, 26 February 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 215 288Sintered metal preparation and its use for joining components recorded proprietor: Heraeus Deutschland GmbH and Co KG | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 10 other decision(s): Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CoA, 16 September 2026) · Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, UPC_CFI_114/2024, 10 October 2025 · Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 2 June 2025) · Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 16 April 2025) · Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 24 January 2025) · Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 2 December 2024) · Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 14 November 2024) · Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, ORD_36668/2024, 25 September 2024 | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.