Short Summary
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. The court addressed Heraeus's request to extend its reply deadline and Vibrantz's request for clarification of deadlines. The court corrected the start date of Heraeus's reply period to March 18, 2025, when its UPC representative was granted access to unredacted documents, but rejected the extension request, holding that vacation plans of Confidentiality Club members cannot affect procedural deadlines.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) was issued on April 16, 2025, by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann as Rapporteur of Panel 1 of the Local Chamber Munich, in proceedings UPC_CFI_114/2024 and UPC_CFI_448/2024 concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288.
The claimants, Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG (represented by Paul Szynka of CBH), filed an infringement action against Vibrantz GmbH (represented by Christian Paul of Jones Day).
Heraeus requested an extension of its reply deadline to May 2, 2025, arguing that: (1) the deadline should not begin on March 17, 2025, because members of the Confidentiality Club did not have access to unredacted documents until April 1, 2025, when the final confidentiality order was issued; (2) Easter holidays in Hesse (April 7-21, 2025) would interfere with the deadline; and (3) two key members of the Confidentiality Club had pre-planned vacations from April 5 to April 21, 2025, leaving only three days for necessary coordination with the claimant. Heraeus alternatively requested extensions to April 28 or April 25, 2025.
Vibrantz agreed with the court's preliminary order regarding the extension request but requested clarification that its own reply period begins on April 22, 2025, and that the written procedure ends no earlier than May 22, 2025.
The court reasoned that the deadline start date needed to be corrected to March 18, 2025, because according to CMS records, that was when the UPC representative of Heraeus was granted access to the unredacted documents. The court noted that access was guaranteed through the UPC representative, and instructions to the register regarding the UPC representative made no contrary provision. The court found no reason to wait for legal force of the confidentiality order, particularly since the confidentiality club order corresponded to Vibrantz's request as the holder of the secret.
Regarding the extension request, the court held that Heraeus itself had assumed in its March 24, 2025 submission that a one-month deadline beginning March 17, 2025 was at issue, without raising grounds for extension at that time. The court further held that vacation absences of Confidentiality Club members are their personal decisions and cannot affect the running of procedural deadlines. Any new factual submissions by Vibrantz in its reply that were not made earlier would be subject to rejection as untimely.
The final order: (1) Heraeus's reply deadlines begin on March 18, 2025; (2) Vibrantz's reply deadlines begin no later than April 22, 2025; (3) the written procedure ends on May 22, 2025; and (4) Heraeus's further requests are rejected. Any party may request review of this order by the panel pursuant to Rule 333 RoP, but the order remains effective until such review (Rule 102.2 RoP).
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG vs Vibrantz GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbHvsBelparts Group N.V.
This is a procedural order from the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP3812870. Belparts Group N.V. requested under Rule 340.1 RoP that its counterclaim for infringement pending before the CD Paris be heard together with its infringement action pending before the LD Munich. The court rejected the request, finding that allowing it would still result in multiple oral hearings and multiple decisions concerning the same patent, with infringement and revocation actions not being heard and decided at the same time.
Occlutech GmbHvsLepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in infringement proceedings regarding European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2. The court granted the respondents' request to classify certain information as confidential but rejected their objection to allowing the applicant's managing director, Mr. Tor Peters, access to that information, finding that the applicant's interest in responding to arguments based on the confidential data outweighed the respondents' interest in restricting access.
DexCom, Inc.vsAbbott Laboratories and Others
DexCom, Inc. appealed a decision of the Munich Local Division that revoked EP 3 797 685 entirely and dismissed all infringement claims brought against the Abbott companies. Following the appeal, DexCom applied to withdraw the infringement action, and the Abbott companies consented and applied to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% refund of appeal court fees to DexCom.
Dyson Technology LimitedvsSharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 2 043 492. Both Dyson (plaintiff) and SharkNinja (defendant/counterclaimant) applied to withdraw their respective infringement action and revocation counterclaim after reaching an out-of-court settlement. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, noted the parties' waivers of claims, and ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
Syngenta LimitedvsSumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited
This is a scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action brought by Syngenta Limited against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited concerning European patent No. 2 152 073. The order sets dates for the interim conference (6 October 2025) and the oral hearing (10 December 2025), and requests the assignment of a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.