Andrea Perronace
5 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
5 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This UPC decision confirms the procedural mechanism for withdrawing patent litigation when parties reach an out-of-court settlement. IMI Hydronic Engineering sought to revoke EP3812870, while Belparts counterclaimed for infringement. The Court granted permission for both actions to be withdrawn, effectively closing the proceedings. The ruling emphasizes that if no final decision has been rendered and all parties agree on the withdrawal without objection, the court will permit the case closure under Rule 265.1 RoP.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
In this case, IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH initiated a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning patent EP3812870. While the proceedings progressed through interim conferences and even faced potential oral hearings, both parties ultimately reached an out-of-court settlement. The UPC Court of First Instance subsequently permitted the withdrawal of both the revocation action and the infringement counterclaim, declaring the case closed. This decision highlights the practical reality that settlements often supersede ongoing litigation in the UPC framework.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
In a procedural order concerning revocation and infringement actions, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed IMI Hydronic Engineering's request for Belparts Group to provide security for costs. IMI argued that Belparts was economically vulnerable, citing losses in 2023. However, the court dismissed the request, emphasizing that the burden of proof rests on the applicant. The decision highlights the strict evidentiary requirements necessary to successfully obtain security for costs proceedings within the UPC framework.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This procedural order addressed a request by Belparts Group N.V. to join its counterclaim for infringement (pending before the CD Paris) with IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH's revocation action (before the CD Paris), and subsequently, to refer another case between divisions. The Court ultimately rejected this connection joinder request. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of R. 340 RoP, emphasizing that procedural choices made by parties must align with the core principles of efficient justice and avoiding conflicting decisions.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural applications from Barco N.V., which sought leave to change its infringement claim and requested an exchange of further written pleadings against Yealink. The court denied the request for a claim amendment because it broadened the scope without sufficient justification regarding prior diligence. Furthermore, the application for more written exchanges was rejected as no new facts or evidence were introduced by the respondent. This ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements within UPC proceedings concerning claim amendments and the introduction of new arguments.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.