Unified Patent Court
Einheitliches Patentgericht
Juridiction unifiee du brevet
Central Division Paris Seat
UPC_CFl_104/2025
UPC_CFl_364/2025

Procedural Order
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 23 September 2025

CLAIMANT
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH Represented by Clemens
(Claimant) - Vollinghauser Weg 2 - 59597 - Bauer, Muller Schupfner &
Erwitte - DE Partner mbB

DEFENDANT
Belparts Group N.V. Represented by Florian Henke,
(Defendant) - Wingepark 4 - 3110 - Rotselaar Eisenfuhr Speiser PartGmbB
- BE

PATENT AT ISSUE
Patent no. Proprietor
EP3812870 Belparts Group N.V.

DECIDING JUDGE
This order has been issued by the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Marjolein Visser

COMPOSITION OF PANEL— FULL PANEL
Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur
Legally qualified judge
Technically qualified judge

LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English
Marjolein Visser
Maximilian Haedicke
Andrea Perronace

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Application R.340.1 RoP
App_36648/20205 UPC_CFl_801/2024 (Local Division Munich) and
App_36631/2025 UPC_CFl_364/2025 (Central Division Paris Seat)
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURES
1. On 13 December 2024, Belparts Group Nv (Belparts) commenced an infringement action
(ACT_65882/2024) against IMI Hydronic International SA (IMI SA) and IMI Hydronic
Engineering AB (IMI AB) before the LD Munich. IMI SA and IMI AB filed a counterclaim for
revocation (CC_20608/2025) on 30 April 2025.
2. On 10 February 2025, IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH (IMI GmbH)
commenced a revocation action (ACT_6739/2025) against Belparts before the CD Paris.
Belparts lodged a counterclaim for infringement (CC_19180/205) on 23 April 2025.
3. Clemens Bauer, representative of IMI in both UPC cases, filed an opposition against the
patent at issue at the European Patent Office (EPO). The Opposition Division upheld the
patent in amended form. Mr. Bauer and Belparts both appealed this decision. Mr. Bauer
has withdrawn the appeal. Belparts continued the appeal. The EPO Boards of Appeal
(BoA) have scheduled the oral hearing on 27 November 2025.
4. The LD Munich has consulted the parties on bifurcation. Both parties voted against
bifurcation. By order dated 15 May 2025, the LD Munich has decided to proceed with
both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. Taking into account
the date of the oral hearing at the BoA and the scheduling of the case in the CD Paris, the
LD Munich has set the dates for the interim conference and oral hearing on
24 March 2026 and 18 June 2026.
5. By order dated 10 June 2025 the CD Paris, taking into account the date of the oral hearing
at the BoA, has set the dates for the interim conference and the oral hearing on
11 December 2025 and 5 February 2026.
6. Pursuant to R. 302.3 RoP, Belparts requested the referral of the counterclaim for
infringement to the LD Munich. IMI SA and IMI BA consented to the request. By order
dated 4 September 2025, the LD Munich rejected the request, because the cases are not
pending before the same division, as is required according to R. 302.3 RoP.

REQUEST
7. On 11 September 2025, Belparts has filed an application (App_ 36648/2015) in the
infringement action before the LD Munich and an application (App_36631/2025) in the
proceedings relating to the counterclaim for infringement before the CD Paris. Belparts
requests that the counterclaim for infringement lodged at the CD Paris be heard together
with the infringement action before the Local Division Munich.
8. Belparts states that IMI SA, IMI AB and IMI GmbH consent to the request.
9. Belparts - in summary - argues:
The Court should attribute great importance to the will of the parties and follow their
common intention. This is reflected in no. 2 of the Preamble of the Rules of
Procedure, the freedom of the parties to determine the subject-matter of the
proceedings as laid down in Art. 76 UPCA and Art. 43 UPCA and the importance of the
consent of the other party to a request pursuant to
R. 340 RoP as emphasized by the Court of Appeal.
Both infringement actions are pending before different panels and are based on the
same patent. There is a legal interest in safeguarding a consistent and uniform
application of UPC law as the proceedings concern the same accused embodiments,
and the parties are entities from the same group of companies.
The present situation is a typical example for a connection joinder according to R. 340
RoP.
Consistent application of UPC law is not ensured by the appointment of the same
technically qualified judge in both panels. According to Art. 78 (1) UPCA, decisions and
orders of the Court shall be taken by a majority of the panel.
- Both parties have come to the conclusion that the infringement matter should
preferably be decided by the Local Division Munich.
The infringement action before the LD Munich should be regarded as the leading
case. The 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 CD Paris and the LD Munich. Furthermore, the infringement action is directed
at such IMI group entities which are more relevant from an infringement point of
view. Whereas IMI GmbH is only acting locally in Germany, IMI SA and IMI AB are
active throughout the entire UPC territory and thus the main source of infringement
in the territory of the UPC.

GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER
10. R. 340 RoP reads:
R. 340 — Connection Joinder
1. In the interests of the proper administration of justice and of avoiding inconsistent deci-sions,
where more than one action concerning the same patent (whether or not between
the same parties) is pending before:
(a) different panels (whether in the same or different divisions); or
(b) different panels of the Court of Appeal,
the panels may by agreement, at any time, after hearing the parties, order that two or
more actions shall, on account of the connection between them, be heard together. Article
33 of the Agreement shall be respected.
2. The actions may subsequently be disjoined.
11. The basis for R. 340 RoP is thus formed by the proper administration of justice and the
avoidance of inconsistent decisions. The request by the parties - hearing together the
counterclaim for infringement and the infringement action - will however still result in
more than one action concerning the same patent pending before different panels, as the
revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation are not included in the request and
the parties earlier voted against bifurcation. The question arises whether under these
circumstances, allowing the request would serve the underlying principles of
R. 340.1 RoP. The Court is inclined to answer this question in the negative.
12. Furthermore, Belparts also describes the R. 340.1 RoP request as a request for the
referral of the counterclaim for infringement to the LD Munich, resulting in a decision by
that division. Thereby, Belparts is using the same wording as Art. 33 (3) (b) and (c) UPCA
(refer the counterclaim for infringement/case for decision to the central division).
R. 340.1 RoP however reads that the panels may by agreement order that actions shall be
heard together. The question arises how hearing together should be interpreted and
whether this rule would allow an action being referred to another division or panel for
decision. R. 340 RoP states that Art. 33 UPCA shall be respected, meaning that a joinder
pursuant to R. 340 RoP cannot result in the referral of an action to another division of the
Court of First Instance beyond the possibilities provided for referral of actions in Art. 33
UPCA (CoA 5 September 2024, UPC_CoA_106/2024 (Advanced Bionics/Med-El) para. 8).
13. Art. 33 (2) - (6) UPCA provides for a framework of competence in case of different actions
relating to the same patent. Pursuant to Art. 33 (4) UPCA, revocation actions shall be
brought before the central division. An exception to this rule applies when an
infringement action between the same parties relating to the same patent has already
been brought before a local division. In that case, the action may only be brought before
the same local division. Although in the present case the infringement action was already
pending at the LD Munich when the revocation action was commenced, this exception
does not apply because the revocation action is lodged by another entity of the IMI
group. The reversed situation, addressed in Art. 33 (5) UPCA that refers to Art. 33 (3)
UPCA, in which the revocation action is already pending before the infringement action
was filed, also does not apply in the present case. Since a counterclaim for revocation has
been filed, Art. 33 (3) UPCA provides for the possibility to refer the counterclaim for
revocation to the central division and, with the agreement of the parties, refer the whole
case (infringement and counterclaim for revocation) to the central division. Pursuant to R.
335 the power of the Court to make a case management order includes a power to vary
or revoke such order. Should both parties agree that the infringement action and the
counterclaim for revocation be transferred to the Central Division the Local Division
Munich will consider revoking the decision dated 15 May 2025.

14. The parties are invited to comment on the foregoing, to reformulate the request and to
elucidate in which way the (amended) request would be in accordance with the
underlying principles and scope of R. 340.1 RoP (in connection with article 33 UPCA).

ORDER
The judge-rapporteur invites the parties to comment according to paragraph 14 of this order within 10 days after the date of this order.

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)

ORDER DETAILS
Action number: ACT_6739/2025
CC_19180/2025
Application number: App_36631/2025
UPC number: UPC_CFI_104/2025
UPC CFI 364/2025
Action type: Revocation Action
Counterclaim for infringement