UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 114/2024

Mar 12, 2024·EP3215288 · SINTERED METAL PREPARATION AND ITS USE FOR JOINING COMPONENTS

Action number: ACT 13227/2024

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Semiconductors
  • Chemistry
    Materials, metallurgy
Language
German
First decided
Feb 12, 2024
Last decision
Oct 10, 2025
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Matthias ZigannLockedLocked
Judge Edger BrinkmanLockedLocked
Judge Tobias PichlmaierLockedLocked
Judge Graham AshleyLockedLocked

At the UPC: Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (9 cases)·Vibrantz GmbH (10 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 9 other proceedings

UPC CoA 919/2025·UPC CoA 920/2025·UPC CFI 1510/2025·UPC CFI 448/2024·UPC APP 16059/2025 and 4 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2025-10-10
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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)
  • 2025-06-02
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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
  • 2025-01-24
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (1)
    • Rescheduling of interim conference
  • 2024-02-12
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • amendment of claim R.263 RoP
    • review of judge-rapporteur order R.333 RoP
    • substitution of parties in revocation counterclaim
Documents
Show all 357 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-10-16Not public
Cover sheet2026-10-16Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-10-16Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-10-16Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-10-16Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-10-16Not public
Application Respondent2026-10-16Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-12Not public
Other document Claimant2025-12-12Not public
Receipt2025-12-12Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • prior public use (betriebliches Vorbenutzungsrecht) in DE, FR, IT, RO as defence to infringement

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 28 UPCA; national prior-use provisions of DE, FR, IT, RO

    Note: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138(1) EPC; Art. 65 UPCA

    Note: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 24(1)(e) UPCA; applicable national law

    Note: The court accepted that national law governs binding effect of prior national nullity judgments (Leitsatz), which it resolved by resort to national law.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • the infringement action should succeed on the remaining valid claims

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 28 UPCA

    Reason: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 138 EPC

    Reason: 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).

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
national law governs binding effect of prior national nullity judgments under Art. 24(1)(e) UPCA (res judicata)prior commercial use right (betriebliches Vorbenutzungsrecht) as a defence to infringement under national law applicable via UPCApatent amendment to maintain partial validity in revocation counterclaim proceedingsextension of territorial scope to Romania following its UPCA accession on 1 September 2024

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • prior public use / offenkundige Vorbenutzung of sintered metal preparation by VibrantzNovelty-destroying
Claim construction notes

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.