UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 104/2025

11. Feb. 2025·EP3812870 · FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Vergleich)
Verfahrensart
Nichtigkeit
Kategorie
Hauptnichtigkeitsklage
Parteien
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Paris CD
Technologie
  • Instruments
    Control
  • Mechanical engineering
    Thermal processes and apparatus
  • Other fields
    Civil engineering
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
3. Nov. 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
26. März 2026
EPA-Einspruch
  • Bauer, ClemensZulässig2023-06-21
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Patent nichtigMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC37% (34/91)124
Paris CDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Marjolein VisserGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Maximilian HaedickeGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Andrea Perronace—Gesperrt

Vor dem UPC: IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH (2 Verfahren)·Belparts Group N.V. (5 Verfahren)

Dieser Streit umfasst 1 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 364/2025

2 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CFI 392/2025·UPC CFI 801/2024

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Paris CD·2025

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-03-26
    Revocation ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Decision of the Paris Central Division dated 26 March 2026 declaring the revocation action (UPC_CFI_104/2025) and the counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) closed following an out-of-court settlement between IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH and Belparts Group N.V. IMI had commenced revocation proceedings in February 2025; Belparts had filed a counterclaim for infringement in April 2025. After the EPO Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 27 November 2025 and upheld the patent in amended form, the parties agreed to settle on 4 February 2026, requesting a stay. On 13 March 2026, Belparts withdrew the counterclaim for infringement and IMI withdrew the revocation action. No cost decision was requested.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Withdrawal of revocation action and counterclaim for infringement following settlement
    • Stay of proceedings under R. 295(d) RoP
    • EPO BoA parallel proceedings
  • 2025-12-18
    Counterclaim for revocationÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Central Division Paris issued a procedural order following the interim conference of 11 December 2025 in proceedings between IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH (revocation action) and Belparts Group N.V. (patent proprietor and counterclaim for infringement). The order addresses IMI's request for security for costs of EUR 500,000. The Court applied the test from the CoA decision in Chint v Jingao (July 2025): security requires a legitimate and real concern about recoverability of costs. As Belparts is seated in Belgium (EU member state), IMI had not demonstrated enforcement difficulties, and the security request appears to have been denied. The full dispositif was not captured in the available text extract.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Security for costs under R.158 RoP and Art.69(4) UPCA
    • Standard for ordering security for costs
    • EU-domiciled defendant and enforcement risk
  • 2025-11-03
    Revocation ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Central Division Paris issued a procedural order under R. 340 RoP joining the counterclaim for revocation from the Munich Local Division to the pending revocation action before the Central Division Paris, to avoid contradictory decisions on EP 3 812 870.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • R. 340 RoP connection joinder of revocation and counterclaim
    • Avoiding contradictory decisions
    • Coordination between Local Division and Central Division
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-03-26Nicht öffentlich
Entscheidung2026-03-26Nicht öffentlich
Decision2026-03-26Öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-19Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-19Nicht öffentlich
Document Claimant2026-03-19Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-16Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-16Nicht öffentlich
Document Claimant2026-03-16Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-02-04Nicht öffentlich
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH's revocation action against Belparts Group N.V.'s EP 3 812 870 (flow control system) before the Paris Central Division was withdrawn following an out-of-court settlement that also resolved Belparts' counterclaim for infringement, after the EPO Board of Appeal dismissed IMI's appeal and upheld the patent in amended form. The case also generated important rulings on the Chint v Jingao test for security for costs and on the limits of connection joinder under R. 340.1 RoP.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • Withdrawal of revocation action by IMI permissible where both parties consent following settlement and no final decision has been taken

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 265.1 RoP

    Hinweis: Court permitted withdrawal, neither party having a legitimate interest in a merits ruling.

  • Security for costs request by IMI: financial position of claimant must give rise to legitimate and real concern about recoverability before security is ordered

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69(4) UPCA; R. 158.1 RoP; CoA order of 9 July 2025 (Chint v Jingao, CoA_431/2025)

    Hinweis: Court applied the Chint v Jingao test; Belparts demonstrated positive financial position, EU domicile reducing enforcement concerns, and group guarantee from AFRISO-WERK — outcome of security request not fully resolved in excerpt but Belparts opposed it substantively.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • Joinder (connection) of counterclaim for revocation from LD Munich to CD Paris proceedings under R. 340.1 RoP (Request 1)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 340.1 RoP

    Begründung: Joinder would still result in multiple oral hearings and multiple decisions; it would not fully achieve the goal of avoiding inconsistent decisions and was not in the proper administration of justice.