UPC CFI 104/2025
Feb 11, 2025·EP3812870 · FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Settled)ActionRevocationCategoryMain revocation action
- Parties
- Claimants
- IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Clemens Bauer-Müller Schupfner & Partner mbB
- Division
- Paris CD
- Technology
- InstrumentsControl
- Mechanical engineeringThermal processes and apparatus
- Other fieldsCivil engineering
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Nov 3, 2025
- Last decision
- Mar 26, 2026
- EPO Opposition
- Bauer, ClemensAdmissible2023-06-21
| Patent revoked | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Paris CD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Marjolein Visser | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Maximilian Haedicke | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Andrea Perronace | — | Locked |
At the UPC: IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH (2 cases)·Belparts Group N.V. (5 cases)
This dispute contains 1 other proceedings
2 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
- 2026-03-26Revocation ActionPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Withdrawal of revocation action and counterclaim for infringement following settlement
- Stay of proceedings under R. 295(d) RoP
- EPO BoA parallel proceedings
- 2025-12-18Counterclaim for revocationPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (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
- 2025-11-03Revocation ActionPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (3)
- R. 340 RoP connection joinder of revocation and counterclaim
- Avoiding contradictory decisions
- Coordination between Local Division and Central Division
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Case closed | 2026-03-26 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-03-26 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-03-26 | Public |
| Receipt | 2026-03-19 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-03-19 | Not public |
| Document Claimant | 2026-03-19 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-03-16 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-03-16 | Not public |
| Document Claimant | 2026-03-16 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-02-04 | Not public |
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
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 265.1 RoPNote: 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
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69(4) UPCA; R. 158.1 RoP; CoA order of 9 July 2025 (Chint v Jingao, CoA_431/2025)Note: 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)
RespondentLegal basis: R. 340.1 RoPReason: 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.
Browse other cases on this principle.