Short Summary
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. The order reschedules the interim hearing from May 23, 2025 to May 28, 2025 due to a scheduling conflict, confirms the oral hearing date of July 1, 2025, and sets the end of the written procedure as May 14, 2025.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) was issued on January 24, 2025 by the Local Division Munich (Lokalkammer München) of the Unified Patent Court, Panel 1, presided over by Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann as Rapporteur. The proceedings are registered under case numbers UPC_CFI_114/2024 and UPC_CFI_448/2024.
The plaintiffs are Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG, represented by Paul Szynka (CBH). The defendant is Vibrantz GmbH, represented by Christian Paul (Jones Day). The patent in dispute is European Patent No. 3 215 288. The language of proceedings is German, and the type of action is an infringement action (Verletzungsklage).
The substantive content of the order is purely procedural. The interim hearing (Zwischenanhörung) previously scheduled for May 23, 2025 needed to be rescheduled due to a scheduling conflict (Terminskollision). The new available date was May 28, 2025. Neither party submitted comments regarding this change, so the court assumed there were no conflicts with the new date.
The court ordered the following: (1) The interim hearing by video conference is rescheduled to May 28, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.; (2) The oral hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. at Denisstr. 3 in Munich is confirmed; (3) The parties are summoned to both hearings; (4) The written procedure ends on May 14, 2025; (5) The parties may submit substantive proposals for the interim hearing and upload a list of participants in ACT_13227/2024 until May 23, 2025.
The order also includes standard information regarding review by the panel under Rule 333 RoP, public access to oral hearings under Rule 115 RoP, audio recording of proceedings under Rules 106 and 115 RoP, consequences of absence or late arrival of representatives under Rule 355.1(b) RoP, and default decisions for non-compliance under Rule 103.1 and 355 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
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing OyvsMicrosoft Corporation
Microsoft Corporation filed an application before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court seeking protection of confidential information under Rule 262 RoP regarding Exhibit BP 01, a settlement offer document. The court granted the application, ruling that while the document was already known to Suinno and did not require restriction of access between the parties under Rule 262A RoP, its original confidential version should not be available to the public due to the confidential nature of certain information contained therein.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing OyvsMicrosoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal dismissed Suinno's request for discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that granted Microsoft's request for security for costs and declared Suinno's own request for security inadmissible. The Court of Appeal held that Suinno was required to first request the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal before seeking discretionary review, and since Suinno failed to do so, its request was inadmissible.
DexCom, Inc.vsAbbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerns an application by Abbott under Rule 263 RoP for leave to amend its case following the release of version 4.12.0 of the LibreLinkUp application on September 26, 2024. DexCom opposed the application, arguing it was untimely and would unreasonably hinder its preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for October 30, 2024. The Judge-rapporteur dismissed Abbott's application, finding that while the first condition of Rule 263 (reasonable diligence) was met, the second condition (not unreasonably hindering the other party) was not satisfied given the proximity to the oral hearing.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsTelefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court ruled on an application for partial reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action concerning EP 1 954 091 B1. The plaintiff had withdrawn the action before the conclusion of the written proceedings, and the defendant consented to the withdrawal. Applying Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure (version effective January 1, 2026), the court ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 7,500) and rejected the plaintiff's request for a higher reimbursement of 60%.
N.J Diffusion SARLvsGisela Mayer GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2404516. The claimant, N.J Diffusion SARL, sought an in-person case management conference to physically examine two wigs deposited with the registry and take detailed photographs of their connection zones. The judge-rapporteur declared the request admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding the requested evidentiary measure unnecessary since enlarged photographs of the wigs were already in the rejoinder brief, and ordered the case management conference to proceed online.
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.