Short Summary
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court granted the claimant's application for re-establishment of rights (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand) under Rule 320 of the Rules of Procedure after the claimant missed the deadline for filing a cost determination application under Rule 151. The underlying decision of October 10, 2025 had split costs 60/40 between claimant and defendant and partially revoked European Patent 3 215 288. The court held that while lack of legal knowledge generally does not suffice as grounds for re-establishment, in this specific case the claimant's misjudgment of the legal situation could not be attributed to it despite legal representation. A dissenting opinion by Judge Brinkman argued the application should have been dismissed as inadmissible for lack of legal interest.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns an application for re-establishment of rights (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand) under Rule 320 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court, filed by Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (Claimant) against Vibrantz GmbH (Defendant) in proceedings UPC-CFI-1624/2025.
Background: On October 10, 2025, the Local Chamber Munich issued a decision in the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_114/2024 and UPC_CFI_448/2024) concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. The patent was partially revoked with effect for France, Italy, and Romania. The infringement action was dismissed. Costs were split, with the Defendant bearing 40% and the Claimant bearing 60%. The value of the proceedings was set at EUR 2 million.
Procedural History: On November 10, 2025, the Defendant filed a cost determination application seeking EUR 213,687.92. On November 19, 2025, the Claimant responded, arguing that under the cost split and applicable caps, there was a net difference of approximately EUR 40,000 that the Claimant would owe the Defendant. On December 1, 2025, the Defendant argued that the Claimant's cost determination application was late and precluded. On December 4, 2025, the Claimant filed an application for re-establishment of rights under Rule 320, seeking to cure the missed deadline for its cost determination application.
The Claimant argued that its legal representative had not noted the Rule 151 deadline after receiving the October 10, 2025 decision, as the representative considered the deadline for a 'cost mixed quota' inapplicable. The representative first became aware of a potential preclusion issue upon receiving the Defendant's submission of December 1, 2025, on the evening of December 2, 2025.
Key Legal Findings: The court established several principles: (1) In cost-splitting cases, both parties must timely file a proportional cost determination application under Rule 151; (2) Missing the Rule 151.1 deadline can only be cured by re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 (citing UPC_CoA_618/2024); (3) Due diligence under Rule 320.1 generally includes knowledge of the legal system and relevant appellate decisions, and any fault of the UPC representative is attributed to the represented party; (4) Lack of legal knowledge generally does not suffice as grounds for re-establishment; (5) However, in this specific case, despite legal representation, the Claimant could not be held responsible for misjudging the legal situation.
The court also addressed the composition of the panel, noting that while the German text of Rule 320.1 refers to the 'relevant panel,' the English ('the relevant panel of the court') and French ('la chambre de la Juridiction concernée') versions, read together with Rule 1.2, support the competence of the fully composed panel. Applying Article 33(4) of the UPCA analogously, the court found that the purpose of granting individual justice in cases of loss of rights through excusable deadline default is best served by having the fully composed panel decide, especially since no appeal is available under Rule 320.7.
Decision: The majority of the panel granted the application for re-establishment of rights, finding it both admissible and well-founded.
Dissenting Opinion: Judge Edger Brinkman filed a dissenting opinion arguing that the application should have been dismissed as inadmissible for lack of legal interest. He reasoned that the Claimant does not seek a cost decision in its own favor (since it must pay net), but only wishes to assert its 40% cost reimbursement share as a defense. He argued this should be permitted within the cost proceedings themselves, making re-establishment unnecessary. He pointed to Rule 156.1 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 69 of the UPCA, which require the rapporteur to give the unsuccessful party an opportunity to comment on all costs to be allocated between the parties. He further argued that the majority's interpretation would force parties in virtually every cost-splitting case to initiate separate cost reimbursement proceedings out of fear of paying without receiving anything back, which would be excessively burdensome and contrary to Article 41(3) UPCA and the flexibility provided in Preamble 4 of the Rules of Procedure.
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
Gilead Sciences, Inc.vsAcademy of Military Medical Sciences
Gilead Sciences, Inc. brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Milan seat) of the Unified Patent Court against the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS) seeking invalidation of European Patent No. 3 854 403, which covers the use of Remdesivir for treating SARS-CoV-2 infection. The claimant argued the patent lacked inventive step and sufficient disclosure, while the defendant sought to maintain the patent as granted or in amended form. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety, dismissed all amendment requests, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs set by agreement at €800,000, with the value of the case fixed at €20 million.
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril GmbH & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Erik Krahbichler, Third Party)
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses the withdrawal of various applications filed in the course of infringement proceedings. After third party Erik Krahbichler withdrew his application for access to the file, defendants Meril filed applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. Following guidance from the judge-rapporteur referencing a similar order from the Central Division Paris Seat, Meril withdrew these applications, and the court permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
Visibly Inc.vsEasee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V.
This order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance concerns an application by the Defendants to stay proceedings following the insolvency of two of the three Defendants. Easee B.V. and Easee Holding B.V. were declared bankrupt by the Amsterdam District Court on 27 and 30 May 2025 respectively. The Court granted the stay of proceedings in their entirety for a period of three months under Rule 311.1 RoP, holding that the insolvency of a party does not lead to an automatic stay but that the Court shall stay proceedings upon such declaration.
Nicoventures Trading Limited – Request for Access to Written Pleadings and Evidence (UPC_CoA_5/2025, APL_289/2025)vsEx Parte
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 498 115, citing its direct interest as a party to parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings against the same patent. Juul Labs and NJOY objected, arguing the request was overly broad and risked undermining confidentiality. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically identified documents already in the casefile, subject to redaction of personal data and a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts until the appeal is closed, while dismissing the remainder of the request.
Total Semiconductor, LLCvsTexas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Total Semiconductor, LLC filed a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 746 957 against three Texas Instruments entities before the Local Division Mannheim. The claimant applied under Rule 263 RoP for leave to amend its case to add the AM67x product as an attacked embodiment, arguing it discovered the new product only after the defendants' rejoinder. The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing it was untimely and would hinder their defence. The court postponed the final decision on the amendment application until the oral hearing and granted the defendants until 11 June 2025 to respond in substance.
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.