Andrea Perronace
4 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning European Patent EP3812870, to which Belparts responded with a counterclaim for infringement and an application to amend the patent. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, both parties applied to withdraw their respective actions. The Court granted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and entered the decision on the register without issuing a cost decision.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This procedural order concerns a revocation action and counterclaim for infringement related to European Patent EP3812870 between IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH (Claimant) and Belparts Group N.V. (Defendant). The central issue addressed is IMI's request for Belparts to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 500,000 under Rule 158.1 RoP, based on alleged economic vulnerability. Belparts opposes the request, arguing that defendants are not required to provide security for costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and that its financial situation, supported by its patent portfolio and positive annual accounts, demonstrates it is not economically vulnerable.
IMI Hydronics Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V
This procedural order concerns a revocation action (UPC_CFI_104/2025) and a counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) related to European Patent EP3812870, owned by Belparts Group N.V. The claimant IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH initiated the revocation action before the Central Division Paris, while Belparts lodged a counterclaim for infringement. The order addresses procedural matters including the connection/joinder of proceedings and the referral of the counterclaim for infringement to the Local Division Munich, where related proceedings between the parties are already pending.
Barco N.V. v.Respondent
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned Barco N.V.'s application for leave to change its claim and request for exchange of further written pleadings in proceedings related to alleged infringement of EP 3 732 827. The Court of First Instance (Brussels Local Division) had dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures for lack of urgency. The Court of Appeal denied Barco's application to introduce a subsidiary claim, finding it broadened the original claim without justification for late amendment, and also rejected Barco's requests for further written pleadings and to disregard portions of Yealink's Statement of response.
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.