UPC_CFI_801/2024 – Belparts v IMI
- Court
- Local Division Munich
- Date
- Outcome
- Denied
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Not heard together Facts 1. Belparts requests that the Counterclaim for infringement filed in the Paris Central Division will be heard together with the infringement case filed in the Munich Local Division. Both cases are based on the same patents and same products, and are against companies in the same group. 2. IMI agrees. The Court The application is dismissed because R. 302.3 RoP provides that two cases may be heard together if they are pending before the same Division. Comment If you cannot read, you might make mistakes! The representatives should have checked R. 340 RoP!
Full Decision Text
Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division Munich issued on 4 September 2025 CLAIMANT Belparts Group N.V. Wingepark 4 - 3110 - Rotselar - BE represented by: Dr. Tobias Wuttke (BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB) DEFENDANTS 1) IMI Hydronic International SA Route de Crassier 19 - 1262 - Eysins – CH 2) IMI Hydronic Engineering AB Ljung - 52480 - Ljung - SE represented by: Clemens Bauer (Müller Schupfner & Partner) PATENT AT ISSUE European patent n° 3 812 870 PANEL/DIVISION Panel 1 of the Local Division Munich DECIDING JUDGE/S This order has been issued by the Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann acting as judge-rapporteur. Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_801/2024 UPC_CFI_392/2025 UPC_CFI_801/2024 UPC_CFI_392/2025 2 LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS Application R.302.3 RoP - App_33992/2025 UPC_CFI_801/2024 REQUESTS BY THE PARTIES Belparts requests: that the Counterclaim for infringement from the parallel infringement proceedings before the Central Division Paris (CC_19180 / 2025 / UPC_CFI_364/2025) be heard together with the present infringement action pursuant R. 302.3 RoP. Both infringement actions are based on the identical patent against the same accused embodiment and entities from the same group of companies. Belparts argues: In the proceedings (CC_19180 / 2025 / UPC_CFI_364/2025) before the Central Division in Paris Defendant (Claimant in the present proceedings) has filed on 30 July 2025 in its Reply to the defence to the counterclaim for infringement (R56.3 RoP) a parallel request to refer the counterclaim for infringement action to the present proceedings. A copy of this submission is attached as - Exhibit BP 1 - A consolidation of the pending infringement proceedings and a joint hearing is justified for safeguarding a consistent and uniform application of UPC law. Insofar, the present infringement action should be regarded as the leading case and the counterclaim for infringement from the central revocation action be adhered to the present infringement action. First of all, the present infringement action was brought first and only became second in line compared to the counterclaim for infringement due to the divergent case schedules of the Paris Central Division and the present Local Division Munich. Furthermore, the present infringement action is directed at such IMI group entities which are more relevant from an infringement point of view. Whereas Claimant and Counter- Defendant in the proceedings before the Central Division Paris is only acting locally in Germany, Defendants in the present proceedings are active throughout the entire UPC territory and thus the main source of infringement in the territory of the UPC. IMI consents to that the Counterclaim for infringement from the parallel infringement proceedings before the Central Division Paris be heard together with the present action. GROUNDS Regardless of the consent voiced by the IMI, the application is not well-founded. Belparts relies on R. 302.3 RoP: “3. The Court may order that parallel infringement or revocation proceedings relating to the same patent or patents and before the same local or regional division or the central division or the Court of Appeal be heard together where it is in the interests of justice to do so.” UPC_CFI_801/2024 UPC_CFI_392/2025 3 The prerequisite that the two proceedings are pending 'before the same local or regional division or central division' is not met, since the counterclaim for infringement is pending with the Central Division, while the infringement action is pending with the Local Division Munich. The Central Division has scheduled an oral hearing for 5 February 2026. The Local Division Munich has scheduled an oral hearing for 18 June 2026. Therefore, the Local Division Munich will be aware of the outcome and can decide on its own case accordingly. Furthermore, TQJ Andrea Perronace is a member of both panels. This will ensure consistent decisions. ORDER The application is dismissed. INFORMATION ABOUT REVIEW BY PANEL Any party may request that this Order be referred to the panel for a review pursuant to R. 333 RoP. Pending review, the Order shall be effective (R. 102.2 RoP) Dr. Zigann Presiding Judge UPC_CFI_801/2024 UPC_CFI_392/2025 4 DETAILS OF THE ORDER Order no. ORD_34051/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_65882/2024 UPC number: UPC_CFI_801/2024 Action type: Infringement Action Related proceeding no. Application No.: 33992/2025 Application Type: Generic procedural Application
Key Holdings
- Request to hear Munich infringement and Paris counterclaim together dismissed.
- Joint hearing requires cases to be pending before same division (R. 302.3 RoP).
Tags
- Case Management
- Joinder