UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 364/2025

Apr 23, 2025·EP3812870 · FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM

Case details
Status
Case Closed (Settled)
Action
Counterclaim for infringement
Category
Counterclaim for infringement
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Paris CD
Technology
  • Instruments
    Control
  • Mechanical engineering
    Thermal processes and apparatus
  • Other fields
    Civil engineering
Language
English
First decided
Sep 23, 2025
Last decision
Mar 26, 2026
EPO Opposition
  • Bauer, ClemensAdmissible2023-06-21
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
Paris CDLockedLocked
Judge Marjolein VisserLockedLocked
Judge Maximilian HaedickeLockedLocked
Judge Andrea Perronace—Locked

At the UPC: Belparts Group N.V. (5 cases)·IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH (2 cases)

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CFI 104/2025

2 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 392/2025·UPC CFI 801/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Paris CD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-03-26
    Counterclaim for infringementPublic

    Summary: Decision of the Paris Central Division dated 26 March 2026 declaring the counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) closed following an out-of-court settlement between Belparts Group N.V. and IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH. This is the counterpart order to UPC_CFI_104/2025: the counterclaim for infringement by Belparts was withdrawn simultaneously with IMI's withdrawal of its revocation action following settlement. No cost decision was requested.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Withdrawal of counterclaim for infringement following settlement
    • Stay of proceedings under R. 295(d) RoP
  • 2025-12-18
    Counterclaim 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
  • 2025-11-03
    Revocation 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
  • 2025-09-23
    Counterclaim for infringementPublic

    Summary: Single-judge procedural order of the CD Paris judge-rapporteur on Belparts' R.340.1 RoP connection-joinder request to have the CD Paris counterclaim for infringement (CC_19180/2025, within IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH's revocation action ACT_6739/2025) heard together with Belparts' earlier infringement action pending before LD Munich. Rather than granting or denying the request, the judge-rapporteur is inclined to find it would not serve R.340's underlying purpose and questions whether R.340 'hearing together' can effect a referral to another division at all (citing Art. 33 UPCA and CoA UPC_CoA_106/2024), and instead invites the parties to comment and reformulate the request within 10 days.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • R.340.1 RoP connection joinder
    • Art. 33 UPCA competence and referral between local/central divisions
    • consolidation of a central division counterclaim for infringement with a local division infringement action
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-03-26Not public
Decision2026-03-26Not public
Decision2026-03-26Public
Receipt2026-03-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-19Not public
Document Claimant2026-03-19Not public
Receipt2026-03-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-13Not public
Application document Defendant2026-03-13Not public
Publication2026-02-18Not public
Plain-English summary

Belparts Group N.V.'s counterclaim for infringement of EP 3 812 870 (flow control system) against IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH was withdrawn following an out-of-court settlement, simultaneously with IMI's withdrawal of its revocation action (UPC_CFI_104/2025). The Paris Central Division declared the proceedings closed under R. 265.1 RoP; no costs decision was requested or issued.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.
  • Withdrawal of counterclaim for infringement by Belparts permissible where both parties consent following settlement

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 265.1 RoP

    Note: Court permitted withdrawal as no final decision had been taken and neither party had a legitimate interest in a court ruling on the merits.

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

No rejected arguments captured.