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
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG a.o.vsA. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. a.o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 962 668 B1. The order addresses the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, restricting access to certain unredacted documents containing trade secrets. The applicants (Roche entities) and respondents (Menarini entities) agreed on the classification of the information as confidential and on the circle of persons authorized to access it on the applicants' side.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbHvsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 353 901. The plaintiff Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation against three Vantiva entities. By agreement of both parties, the court ordered the suspension of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the plaintiff's application of April 9, 2025.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSONvsASUSTEK COMPUTER INC, Legally qualified judge: Sam Granata
In this legal proceeding before LISBON LOCAL DIVISION (decision issued on 2026-07-29) under reference UPC_32C65DC0E1, TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON appeared in dispute with ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC, Legally qualified judge: Sam Granata concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Aesculap AGvsShanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd., Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd
Aesculap AG sued three Shanghai Bojin-related entities for direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, which protects a surgical torque-transmitting instrument with a cutting tool. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found that it lacked jurisdiction over the two Chinese defendants under Rule 116.3 RoP (long arm jurisdiction), but held the European-based Defendant 2 (Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)) liable as an intermediate for offering and distributing infringing drill bits in Germany. The court issued an injunction, information/order disclosure obligations, and coercive penalties against Defendant 2, while dismissing the claims against Defendants 1 and 3 and splitting costs equally between the plaintiff and Defendant 2.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLCvsINFOBLOX INC. a.o.
This procedural order concerns a request by the three defendants to align the time limit for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action. The defendants argued that alignment would simplify proceedings and synchronize deadlines, and the claimant's representative had agreed out of court. The court found the request reasonable, noting that the deviation was only about 20 days, and held that while the claimant was not obliged to proactively arrange payment for service in the U.S., it bore the risk of deviating service dates due to its delay in arranging such payment.
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.