Short Summary
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning European patent EP3812870 before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. Belparts counterclaimed for infringement and applied to amend the patent. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, both parties applied to withdraw their respective actions, and the Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed.
Detailed Summary
This consolidated matter before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division Paris Seat, concerned European patent EP3812870, owned by Belparts Group N.V. The proceedings comprised two related actions: a revocation action (UPC_CFI_104/2025) and a counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025), along with an application to amend the patent.
By Statement for revocation dated 10 February 2025, IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH (IMI) commenced a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. (Belparts) before the CD Paris. On 23 April 2025, Belparts lodged a Statement of defence, together with an Application to amend the patent and a Counterclaim for infringement. The Court scheduled the interim conference for 11 December 2025 and the oral hearing for 5 February 2026, taking into account the planned oral proceedings at the EPO Board of Appeal on 27 November 2025 and parallel cases before the UPC LD Munich concerning the same patent.
On 27 November 2025, the EPO Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the patent in the form amended by the Opposition Division. The interim conference was held on 11 December 2025. On 4 February 2026, the parties jointly requested a stay of the proceedings pursuant to R. 295(d) RoP because they had reached a settlement. The Court granted the stay and cancelled the oral hearing.
On 13 March 2026, Belparts filed an application to withdraw the counterclaim for infringement, stating that the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement, that IMI would agree to the withdrawal of the counterclaim, and that IMI would withdraw the revocation action. Belparts submitted that no decision on costs was requested. On 16 March 2026, IMI filed its own application to withdraw the revocation action, also citing the out-of-court settlement.
The Court applied R. 265.1 RoP, which provides that a claimant may apply to withdraw an action as long as no final decision has been taken, and the Court shall decide on the application after hearing the other party. The Court found the request admissible since no final decision had been taken. Both parties had applied for withdrawal of the case in which they were the claimant for reasons of a settlement and did not object to the application for withdrawal by the other party. The Court therefore assumed that both parties had been sufficiently heard, that they agreed on both actions being withdrawn, and that none of the parties had a legitimate interest in the actions being decided by the Court.
The panel (presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Marjolein Visser, legally qualified judge Maximilian Haedicke, and technically qualified judge Andrea Perronace) permitted the withdrawal of the revocation action UPC_CFI_104/2025 and the counterclaim for infringement UPC_CFI_364/2025, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered that the decision be entered on the Register. As the parties did not request a cost decision, none was issued.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat. Understanding the court's reasoning in IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH vs Belparts Group N.V. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Headwater Research LLCvsMotorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning cross-applications for security for costs under Rule 158.1 RoP in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 110 072. The court held that defendants who are plaintiffs in counterclaims for revocation may also request security for costs related to those counterclaims. The plaintiff's request for security from the defendants was denied, while the defendants' requests were partially granted, with the plaintiff ordered to provide EUR 200,000 in security to defendants 1-3 and EUR 100,000 to defendant 5.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG & Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KGvsVibrantz GmbH
This procedural order concerns a dispute over the proper defendant for a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent No. 3 215 288 before the Local Chamber Munich. Vibrantz GmbH filed its revocation counterclaim against Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG (Plaintiff 2), the registered patent proprietor, rather than against Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (Plaintiff 1), the undisputed substantive proprietor. The court rejected Heraeus Precious Metals' applications to dismiss the counterclaim as manifestly inadmissible, holding that under Rules 25.1, 42, and 8.6 RoP, a revocation counterclaim may validly be directed against the registered proprietor.
10x Genomics, Inc.vsCurio Bioscience Inc.
10x Genomics, Inc. sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience Inc. before the Local Division in Düsseldorf for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1, which protects methods and products for localised detection of nucleic acid in tissue samples. The court granted a partial injunction restraining Curio Bioscience from offering, marketing, using, or possessing certain arrays with poly-T capture probes in Germany, France, and Sweden, subject to 10x Genomics providing security of EUR 2,000,000. Both parties were ordered to provisionally reimburse each other's costs in the amount of EUR 100,000 each, reflecting their partial success.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINEvsHEALIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
Unified Patent Court decision.
Illumina, Inc.vsElement Biosciences, Inc. and Others (EP3714978)
Illumina, Inc. brought a patent infringement action before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP3714978 against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. The Defendants sought dismissal under Rule 361 RoP, arguing the Statement of Claim manifestly lacked foundation because it omitted the 'fluidic device' feature of claim 1 from its feature breakdown, headings, and injunctive relief requests. The Court rejected the dismissal request, finding the omissions were clerical mistakes that did not render the action doomed to fail, and granted Illumina's request under Rule 9 RoP to file a corrected Statement of Claim.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.