IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland v Belparts Group (CFI, 18 December 2025)
| Date | 18 December 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
| Type of action | Counterclaim for revocation |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_104/2025;UPC_CFI_364/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_104/2025and · UPC_CFI_364/2025 |
| Parties | IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v. Belparts Group N.V. |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 26 March 2026 : IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland v Belparts Group (CFI, 26 March 2026) UPC-CFI-104/2025
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
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
- Practical point: a security request built only on an extract from a commercial database will fail once the opponent files contrary financial evidence, the applicant needs material that genuinely shows a recovery risk.
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
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.
Parties
- claimantIMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantBelparts Group N.V.7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 23 September 2025 IMI Hydronics Engineering Deut v Belparts Group (CFI, 23 September 2025) Counterclaim for infringement · UPC_CFI_364/2025
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
EP 3 812 870mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland v Belparts Group (CFI, 26 March 2026) cited in this record
- IMI Hydronic Engineering Deuts v Belparts Group (CFI, 26 March 2026) cited in this record
- IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland v Belparts Group (CFI, 3 November 2025) cited in this record
- IMI Hydronics Engineering Deut v Belparts Group (CFI, 23 September 2025) cited in this record
- Chint New Energy v JingAo Solar (CoA, 9 July 2025) cited in this record
- AorticLab v Emboline (CoA, 20 June 2025) cited in this record
- Aarke v SodaStream Industries (CoA, 29 November 2024) cited in this record
- Audi v Network System Technologies (CoA, 17 September 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 812 870 | Mentioned 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.