UPC_CFI_104/2025
FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM
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action against Belparts Group N.V.'s EP 3 812 870 (flow control system) before the Paris Central Division was withdrawn following an out-of-court settlement that also resolved Belparts' counterclaim for infringement, after the EPO Board of Appeal dismissed IMI's appeal and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.
Withdrawal of revocation action by IMI permissible where both parties consent following settlement and no final decision has been taken
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 265.1 RoPHinweis: 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.
Joinder (connection) of counterclaim for revocation from LD Munich to CD Paris proceedings under R. 340.1 RoP (Request 1)
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 340.1 RoPBegründung: 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.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.