UPC CFI 114/2024
12. März 2024·EP3215288 · SINTERED METAL PREPARATION AND ITS USE FOR JOINING COMPONENTS
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 13227/2024
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Keine Verletzung)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KGUnternehmen
- Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KGUnternehmen
Vertreter- Paul Szynka-CBH Rechtsanwälte
- Hannes Jacobsen-CBH Rechtsanwälte
- Christian Haggenmüller-Maiwald
Beklagte- Vibrantz GmbHUnternehmen
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringSemiconductors
- ChemistryMaterials, metallurgy
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 12. Feb. 2024
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 10. Okt. 2025
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Matthias Zigann | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Edger Brinkman | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Tobias Pichlmaier | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Graham Ashley | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (9 Verfahren)·Vibrantz GmbH (10 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 9 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 919/2025·UPC CoA 920/2025·UPC CFI 1510/2025·UPC CFI 448/2024·UPC APP 16059/2025 und 4 weitere
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2025-10-10Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division dismissed Heraeus Electronics' infringement action against Vibrantz GmbH concerning EP 3 215 288 (metal sintering preparation) and partially allowed the counterclaim for revocation, with the patent maintained in amended form for certain claims; costs split 60% claimant / 40% defendant.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Patent infringement (dismissed)
- Partial revocation via counterclaim
- Binding effect of national nullity judgment (Art. 24.1(e) UPCA)
- Private prior use right (DE, FR, IT, RO)
- 2025-06-02Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division judge-rapporteur issued an interim conference order (R. 105.5 RoP) in the infringement action by Heraeus against Vibrantz concerning EP 3 215 288. The order recorded directions from the videoconference of 28 May 2025, including guidance on admissibility of the counterclaim for revocation in Germany, limitation of late-filed arguments, and consolidation of claim requests.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Interim conference preparation (R. 105.5 RoP)
- Admissibility of counterclaim for revocation in Germany
- Timeliness of late-filed arguments (R. 9.2 RoP)
- Consolidation of auxiliary requests
- 2025-01-24Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Procedural order from the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_114/2024 and UPC_CFI_448/2024) rescheduling the interim conference between Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz concerning EP 3 215 288 from 23 May 2025 to 28 May 2025 due to a scheduling conflict, while confirming the oral hearing date of 1 July 2025.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (1)
- Rescheduling of interim conference
- 2024-02-12Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division issued a procedural order in Heraeus v Vibrantz, upholding the claimant's amendment of infringement claims to include indirect infringement of a process claim without requiring court leave, granting other amendments to extend claims to Romania, and allowing substitution of parties in the revocation counterclaim.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- amendment of claim R.263 RoP
- review of judge-rapporteur order R.333 RoP
- substitution of parties in revocation counterclaim
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-10-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Respondent | 2026-10-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Respondent | 2026-10-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Respondent | 2026-10-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Respondent | 2026-10-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application Respondent | 2026-10-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2025-12-12 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Other document Claimant | 2025-12-12 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-12-12 | Nicht öffentlich |
Heraeus Electronics sued Vibrantz for infringement of EP 3 215 288 covering a sintered metal preparation for joining electronic components, at the Munich Local Division. The court partially revoked the patent on Vibrantz's counterclaim and dismissed the infringement action entirely because Vibrantz established a prior commercial use right in Germany, France, Italy and Romania. Costs were split 60% claimant / 40% respondent, reflecting mixed success.
prior public use (betriebliches Vorbenutzungsrecht) in DE, FR, IT, RO as defence to infringement
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 28 UPCA; national prior-use provisions of DE, FR, IT, ROHinweis: The court upheld Vibrantz's prior-use right, which was a key reason the infringement action was dismissed after partial revocation.
counterclaim for partial revocation of EP 3 215 288 for added matter / lack of novelty over prior public use
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1) EPC; Art. 65 UPCAHinweis: The revocation counterclaim was partially successful; the patent was maintained in amended form for certain claims and revoked for others.
national res judicata effect of a prior German nullity judgment does not automatically bind the UPC on the same validity question
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 24(1)(e) UPCA; applicable national lawHinweis: The court accepted that national law governs binding effect of prior national nullity judgments (Leitsatz), which it resolved by resort to national law.
the infringement action should succeed on the remaining valid claims
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 28 UPCABegründung: The infringement action was dismissed because the respondent's prior public use right neutralised liability even where the patent was not fully revoked.
full revocation of EP 3 215 288 including all amended claims
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138 EPCBegründung: The Nichtigkeitswiderklage was only partially allowed; the patent survived in an amended form for certain claims (claims 4, 54, 65, 76, 87, 98 of the amended set).
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
- prior public use / offenkundige Vorbenutzung of sintered metal preparation by VibrantzNeuheitsschädlich
The case turned on whether the prior public use covered the claimed subject-matter (metal sintering preparation with specified particle components), but the substantive claim construction reasoning is in the redacted body of the 73-page decision and not reproduced in the excerpts.