UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 448/2024

Jul 29, 2024·EP3215288 · SINTERED METAL PREPARATION AND ITS USE FOR JOINING COMPONENTS

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as amended)
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Semiconductors
  • Chemistry
    Materials, metallurgy
Language
German
First decided
Feb 26, 2025
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.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Matthias ZigannLockedLocked
Judge Edger BrinkmanLockedLocked
Judge Tobias PichlmaierLockedLocked
Judge Graham AshleyLockedLocked

At the UPC: Vibrantz GmbH (10 cases)·Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG (7 cases)

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

This dispute contains 6 other proceedings

UPC CFI 114/2024·UPC APP 16059/2025·UPC APP 2369/2025·UPC APP 33728/2024·UPC APP 43938/2024 and 1 more

2 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CoA 919/2025·UPC CoA 920/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2025-10-10
    Counterclaim for revocationPublic

    Summary: The Munich Local Division issued the same decision (same panel) as UPC_CFI_114/2024 for the associated counterclaim proceedings, finding infringement action dismissed and patent EP 3 215 288 partially revoked.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Partial revocation counterclaim
    • Binding effect of national nullity judgment
    • Private prior use right
  • 2025-02-26
    Public

    Summary: Procedural order of the Munich Local Division in infringement and revocation counterclaim proceedings concerning a metal sintering preparation patent. The order addresses: (1) correction of a prior order of 2 December 2024 by adding an operative clause ordering the substitution of the counter-claimant in the revocation proceedings from Heraeus Precious Metals to Heraeus Electronics; (2) request for review by the panel under R. 333 RoP; and (3) a claimant application regarding the counterclaim under R. 362 RoP concerning the German designation of the patent.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Correction of order (R. 353 RoP)
    • Substitution of party in revocation counterclaim (R. 25.1, R. 42.2, R. 305.1(c) RoP)
    • Panel review (R. 333 RoP)
    • Prior use right defence
Documents
Show all 184 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-10-16Not public
Cover sheet2026-10-16Not public
Application Respondent2026-10-16Not public
Application Respondent2026-10-16Not public
Case closed2025-12-15Not public
Publication of decision2025-10-10Not public
Oral procedure closed2025-10-10Not public
Decision2025-10-10Not public
Decision2025-10-10Not public
Decision2025-10-10Public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG brought an infringement action against Vibrantz GmbH for EP 3 215 288 (sintered metal preparation for joining components) at the Munich Local Division; Vibrantz counterclaimed for revocation. The court partially revoked the patent (maintaining amended claims in the order), dismissed the infringement action, and apportioned costs 60% to Heraeus and 40% to Vibrantz. A notable principle established: the binding effect of prior national invalidity judgments on UPC proceedings is determined by national law under Art. 24.1(e) UPCA.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Binding effect of a national revocation judgment on UPC proceedings must be assessed by reference to national law in the absence of specific UPCA provisions

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 24.1(e) UPCA

    Note: Court held that since UPCA contains no special rules on the res judicata effect of national invalidity judgments, national law governs this question.

  • EP 3 215 288 (sintered metal preparation) is partially invalid

    Claimant

    Note: The revocation counterclaim succeeded in part; certain claims were revoked while others were maintained; infringement action was dismissed.

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

  • Private prior use right (in DE, FR, IT, RO) precludes infringement finding

    Respondent

    Reason: The private prior use right arguments were addressed but did not change the overall outcome; infringement action was dismissed on other grounds related to partial invalidity of the patent.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Res judicata effect of national invalidity judgments on UPC proceedings governed by national law (Art. 24.1(e) UPCA)Private prior use rights in DE, FR, IT, RO are available defences in UPC infringement proceedingsPartial revocation of patent may result in dismissal of infringement action where remaining valid claims are not infringedCosts apportioned proportionally to partial success: 40% claimant, 60% respondent

Browse other cases on this principle.