IMI Hydronic v Belparts (UPC_CFI_104/2025 & UPC_CFI_364/2025)
Decision date:
03 November 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- The parties are engaged in parallel proceedings before the Paris CD and the Munich LD. Belparts had commenced infringement proceedings against IMI before the Munich LD and IMI counterclaimed for revocation. Separately, a German IMI entity, IMI GmbH, brought a revocation action in the Paris CD, in which Belparts counterclaimed for infringement. There are also parallel EPO opposition proceedings, with a hearing before the Board of Appeals set for 27 November 2025.
- The Munich LD consulted the parties on bifurcation, which both the parties voted against. The Munich LD therefore decided to proceed with both the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, taking into account the date of the oral hearing at the EPO Board of Appeals and the scheduling in the Paris CD.
- Belparts first sought referral of the counterclaim for infringement to the Munich LD under Rule 302.3 RoP, which IMI agreed to. The Munich LD rejected this request as the actions were not pending before the same division, as required under Rule 302.3 RoP.
- Belparts then applied in both proceedings for a connection joinder under Rule 340.1 RoP. Belparts requested that i) the counterclaim for infringement in the Paris CD be heard together with the pending infringement case in the Munich LD; and ii) if the request was granted and the infringement cases are heard together, the revocation claim in the Paris CD be heard together with the Munich LD revocation counterclaim. IMI consented to Belparts' requests.
- The court examined whether Rule 340.1 RoP could be applied consistently with Article 33 UPCA (competence of the divisions of the Court of First Instance) and its purposes.
- The Munich LD rejected Belparts' requests. The court stated that "[a]s a result of the (procedural) choices the parties made", permitting the requests would still result in multiple oral hearings and multiple decisions concerning the same patent and (partly) the same parties and where the infringement actions and revocation actions are not being heard at the same time. This was said not to be in accordance with the interests of proper administration of justice and avoiding inconsistent decisions.
- The proceedings were order to continue as scheduled.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.