UPC_CFI_104/2025;UPC_CFI_364/2025 – IMI v Belparts

Court
Central Division Paris
Date
Outcome
Withdrawn
Sector
Mechanics
Decision Type
SETTLEMENT

Expert Commentary

Settlement Facts 1. On 10 February 2025, IMI initiated a revocation action against EP 3 812 870. 2. The Court set the dates for the interim conference and the oral argument as 11 December 2025 and 5 February 2026, respectively. In doing so, it took into consideration the appeal hearing before the EPO’s Boards of Appeal (BoA) on 27 November 2026, as well as the dates set for the parallel cases before the LD Munich. 3. The BoA dismissed the appeal, and the patent was maintained in the version as amended by the Opposition Division. 4. On 4 February 2026, the parties requested a stay due to a settlement, which was granted. 5. On 12 March 2026, Belparts filed for withdrawal. IMI agreed. The parties did not ask for costs. The Court The Court accepted the withdrawal. Comment This is one of the many cases that ultimately settle, as this week’s Unfiltered shows. Was the outcome at the EPO the trigger this time? The Court accepted the request for a stay one day before the hearing, presumably because parties said that they had settled. The parties should realize that, if they had settled two weeks earlier, they could have saved the Court a great deal of work. However, sometimes the doorstep of the Court is the necessary trigger! It can be worse for a judge. Ask judges what has been their most frustrating experience (apart from representatives being unable to be brief and to the point) and the answer is: a settlement a day or even hours before the judgment is to be announced, after the judge has worked on it for many days. The Court of Justice in its first patent case (Monsanto v Cefetra, case C-428/08) did not want to throw their work in the dustbin and, despite a letter of the parties that the case had settled and a letter of the referring court that it withdrew its questions, still delivered judgment!

Full Decision Text

Central Division Paris Seat UPC CFI 104/2025 UPC CFI 364/2025 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 26 March 2026 Patent no. EP3812870 **CLAIMANT** IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH (Claimant) - Völlinghauser Weg 2 - 59597 - Erwitte - DE Represented by Clemens Bauer, Müller Schupfner & Partner mbB **DEFENDANT** Belparts Group N.V. (Defendant) - Wingepark 4 - 3110 - Rotselaar - BE Represented by Florian Henke, Eisenführ Speiser PartGmbB **PATENT AT ISSUE** Patent no. Proprietor EP3812870 Belparts Group N.V. **DECIDING JUDGES** This decision is issued by the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Marjolein Visser, the legally qualified judge Maximilian Haedicke and the technically qualified judge Andrea Perronace. **COMPOSITION OF PANEL – FULL PANEL** Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Marjolein Visser Legally qualified judge Maximilian Haedicke Technically qualified judge Andrea Perronace **LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS** English **SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS** Revocation action Application to amend a patent Counterclaim for infringement Withdrawal of the action (R. 265 RoP) **SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND APPLICATIONS** 1. By Statement for revocation dated 10 February 2025, IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH (IMI) commenced a revocation action (UPC CFI 104/2025) against Belparts Group N.V. (Belparts) before the CD Paris regarding the patent at issue. 2. Belparts lodged a Statement of defence, together with an Application to amend a patent and a Counterclaim for infringement (UPC CFI 364/2025) on 23 April 2025. 3. By order dated 10 June 2025, taking into account the planned oral proceedings at the EPO BoA on 27 November 2025 and the dates set in the parallel cases before the UPC LD Munich concerning the same patent, the date for the interim conference was set on 11 December 2025 and the date for the oral hearing was set on 5 February 2026. 4. On 27 November 2025, the EPO BoA dismissed the appeal and therewith upheld the patent in the form amended by the OD. 5. On 11 December 2025, the interim conference was held. 6. On 4 February 2026, the parties requested a stay of the proceedings pursuant to R. 295 (d) RoP because of a settlement. The Court has granted the stay and cancelled the oral hearing. 7. On 13 March 2026, Belparts filed an application to withdraw the counterclaim for infringement. It submitted that the parties have reached an out-of-court settlement. It further submitted that IMI will agree to the withdrawal of the counterclaim for infringement and that IMI will withdraw the revocation action. Belparts submitted that no decision on the costs is requested. 8. On 16 March 2026, IMI filed an application to withdraw the revocation action. It also submitted that the parties have reached an out-of-court settlement. **GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION** 9. Pursuant to R. 265.1 RoP, as long as no final decision has been taken, a Claimant may apply to withdraw his action. The Court shall decide on the application after hearing the other party. The application to withdraw shall not be permitted if the other party has a legitimate interest in the action being decided by the Court. 10. In the present case, the request is admissible since no final decision has been taken. Both parties have applied for withdrawal of the case in which they are the claimant for reasons of a settlement and did not object to the application for withdrawal by the other party. It can therefore be assumed that both parties have been sufficiently heard, that they agree on both actions being withdrawn and that none of the parties has a legitimate interest in the actions being decided by the Court. 11. The Court will declare the proceedings closed and this decision will be entered on the register in accordance with R. 265.2 (a) and (b) RoP. As the parties have not requested this, no cost decision will be issued. **DECISION** permits the withdrawal of the revocation action UPC CFI 104/2025 and the counterclaim for infringement UPC CFI 364/2025 declares the proceedings closed; orders that this decision be entered on the Register. Marjolein Visser, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Maximilian Haedicke, legally qualified judge, signed on his behalf by Marjolein Visser, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Andrea Perronace, technically qualified judge For the Deputy-Registrar,

Key Holdings

  • Withdrawal of a revocation action is accepted if the opposing party agrees and no cost decision is sought.
  • Settlements often occur late in proceedings, sometimes just before a hearing or judgment, which can save the court significant work if done earlier.
  • EPO Board of Appeal decisions can be a trigger for settlement in parallel UPC proceedings.

Tags

  • Settlement
  • Withdrawal
  • Revocation
  • Stay of Proceedings
  • EPO
  • Procedural

Related Cases

View original decision