Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 13 January 2026)

Date	13 January 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Application For Costs
Registry reference	UPC-CFI_0001624/2025
Parties	Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v. Vibrantz GmbH

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 an order of 13 January 2026, the full panel of the Munich Local Division granted Heraeus Electronics re-establishment of rights in the one-month period under Rule 151.1 for starting cost-assessment proceedings, following the decision on the merits of 10 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_114/2024 and UPC_CFI_448/2024) that split the costs between the parties. The order holds that where costs are split, each party must apply for their assessment within the time limit. It is accompanied by a dissenting opinion.

Question

Can a party that was a net payer after set-off, and therefore did not apply for cost assessment within the Rule 151.1 period, obtain re-establishment of rights under Rule 320?

Decision

The majority held the claimant’s view to be wrong: where costs are split, both parties must apply for assessment of their share in time, and the opportunity to comment under Rule 156.1 does not allow a set-off. The omission can only be cured by re-establishment (UPC_CoA_618/2024). Due care generally includes knowledge of the law and the case law, and the representative’s fault is attributed to the party, but, absent an express rule and settled case law, the error was exceptionally not held against the claimant. The order cannot be appealed (Rule 320.7). The dissent considered the application inadmissible for lack of legal interest, as the claimant sought no payment.

Key points for practice

Where costs are split, each party must file its own cost application within one month of the decision (Rule 151.1), even if it is a net payer.
Ignorance of the law justifies re-establishment only exceptionally, absent a clear rule and settled case law.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts 41(3) and 69
Statute of the Court: Art. 36
Rules of Procedure: Rules 1.2, 151, 156 and 320
Case law cited: Court of Appeal, 6 June 2025, UPC_CoA_618/2024, Lionra v Cisco, Hamburg Local Division, 2 June 2025

Related decisions

Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz, 10 October 2025, decision on the merits splitting costs 40% and 60%.

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: 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

claimantHeraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG13 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantVibrantz GmbH10 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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: Application For Costs
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La restitution dans le délai de la règle 151.1 est accordée : en cas de partage des frais, chaque partie doit demander leur fixation, mais l'erreur de droit n'est exceptionnellement pas reprochée à la demanderesse, faute de texte et de jurisprudence établie.
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.

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, UPC_CFI_114/2024, 10 October 2025) cited in this record
Lionra Technologies v Cisco Systems (CFI, 2 June 2025) cited in this record

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.

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.