Opens in a new tab

Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 26 February 2025)

Date26 February 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMunich (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric Order
Registry referenceORD_9486/2025
PartiesHeraeus 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 215 288
Sintered 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.