Opens in a new tab

IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland v Belparts Group (CFI, 18 December 2025)

Date18 December 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Central Division - Seat
Type of actionCounterclaim for revocation
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_104/2025;UPC_CFI_364/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_104/2025and · UPC_CFI_364/2025
PartiesIMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v. Belparts Group N.V.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 18 December 2025, given in revocation action UPC_CFI_104/2025 and counterclaim for infringement UPC_CFI_364/2025 concerning EP 3 812 870, the Paris Central Division dismissed IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland’s request for EUR 500,000 security for costs from Belparts Group. Unsupported figures taken from a commercial database do not establish a real risk that a costs order will not be recoverable.

Question

Can a revocation claimant obtain security for costs from the patentee, a defendant based in Belgium, on the strength of a 2023 loss of EUR 879,489 reported by Northdata?

Decision

No. Applying the Court of Appeal’s test, the division asked whether the other party’s financial position gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a costs order may not be recoverable, or that enforcement may be unduly burdensome. The applicant bears the burden of substantiation and proof (paragraph 14). Belparts being seated in Belgium, no difficulty of enforcement was argued (paragraph 15). IMI relied solely on Northdata figures with nothing more, whereas Belparts disputed them and filed evidence of its finances (paragraph 16). The division left open whether security may be sought in respect of a counterclaim for infringement and the relevance of the parent company’s assurance (paragraph 17).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 69(4)
Rules of Procedure
Rule 158.1
Case law cited
Chint New Energy v JingAo Solar, Court of Appeal, 9 July 2025, Audi v Network System, Court of Appeal, 17 September 2024, AorticLab v Emboline, Court of Appeal, 20 June 2025, Aarke v SodaStream Industries, Court of Appeal, 29 November 2024

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Revocation action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: G 1/25, Take Three: Anything You Leave in the Description May Be Used Against You (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CFI_104/2025 official number
  • UPC_CFI_364/2025 official number

Follow these proceedings

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 23 September 2025 IMI Hydronics Engineering Deut v Belparts Group (CFI, 23 September 2025) Counterclaim for infringement · UPC_CFI_364/2025
  2. 3 November 2025 IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland v Belparts Group (CFI, 3 November 2025) Revocation Action · UPC_CFI_364/2025

    La demande de jonction est rejetée : même consentie par toutes les parties, elle laisserait subsister plusieurs audiences et décisions sur le même brevet sans examen conjoint de la contrefaçon et de la validité.

  3. 18 December 2025 IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland v Belparts Group (CFI, 18 December 2025) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_104/2025, UPC_CFI_364/2025
  4. 26 March 2026 IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland v Belparts Group (CFI, 26 March 2026) Revocation Action · UPC_CFI_104/2025

    Le désistement de l'action en nullité et de la demande reconventionnelle en contrefaçon est autorisé et l'instance déclarée close, sans décision sur les frais.

  5. 26 March 2026 IMI Hydronic Engineering Deuts v Belparts Group (CFI, 26 March 2026) Counterclaim for infringement · UPC_CFI_364/2025

What the record states

Nature of the act
Counterclaim for revocation
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La demande de garantie des frais de 500 000 euros est rejetée, le demandeur ne s'appuyant que sur des données Northdata non étayées face aux pièces financières produites par le titulaire établi en Belgique.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 812 870Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland v Belparts Group (CFI, 26 March 2 · IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland v Belparts Group (CFI, 3 November · Belparts Group v IMI Hydronic International (CFI, 4 September 2025) · Belparts Group v IMI Hydronic International (CFI, 15 May 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.