Short Summary
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. The order reschedules the interim hearing (Zwischenanhörung) from May 23, 2025 to May 28, 2025 due to a scheduling conflict, while confirming the oral hearing date of July 1, 2025. The written proceedings are set to close on May 14, 2025, and parties may submit substantive proposals for the interim hearing until May 23, 2025.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings numbered 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 of CBH. The defendant is Vibrantz GmbH, represented by Christian Paul of Jones Day. The dispute concerns European Patent No. 3 215 288 and is categorized as an infringement action (Verletzungsklage). The order was issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann acting as the Rapporteur, with the proceedings conducted in German.
The substantive dispute between the parties is not addressed in this order, as it is purely a procedural matter. The issue before the court was the rescheduling of the interim hearing originally set for May 23, 2025, which needed to be moved due to a scheduling conflict (Terminskollision). The court identified May 28, 2025 as an available alternative date. Neither party submitted observations regarding the proposed new date, leading the court to assume no objections existed.
& Analysis: The court reasoned that since both parties remained silent regarding the proposed rescheduling, it could be assumed that no party would be prevented from attending on the new date. The court therefore exercised its discretion to reschedule the interim hearing while maintaining the previously set date for the oral hearing.
Final Order & Ruling: The court ordered the following: (1) The interim hearing via video conference was rescheduled to May 28, 2025, at 10:00. (2) The oral hearing on July 1, 2025, at 9:00, at Denisstraße 3 in Munich, was confirmed. (3) Both parties were summoned to attend both hearings. (4) The written proceedings were set to end on May 14, 2025. (5) The parties were permitted to submit substantive proposals for the interim hearing and upload a list of participants in ACT_13227/2024 until May 23, 2025. The order also included standard information regarding review by the panel under Rule 333 RoP, public access to the oral hearing under Rule 115 RoP, audio recording provisions, and consequences of absence or default under Rule 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 vs Vibrantz GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.