Belparts Group v IMI Hydronic International (CFI, 4 September 2025)

Date	4 September 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_33992/2025 · ORD_34051/2025
Parties	Belparts Group N.V.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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

By order of 4 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_801/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division dismissed Belparts’ application to have its action for infringement of EP 3 812 870 against IMI Hydronic International and IMI Hydronic Engineering AB heard together with the counterclaim for infringement pending before the Paris Central Division (UPC_CFI_364/2025), even though the defendants consented.

Question

Does Rule 302.3 RoP allow parallel proceedings relating to the same patent to be heard together where they are pending before a local division and before the central division?

Decision

No. Rule 302.3 RoP covers parallel proceedings pending before the same local or regional division, the central division or the Court of Appeal. That requirement is not met where the counterclaim is pending in Paris and the infringement action in Munich. The parties’ consent makes no difference.

The judge added that the Central Division’s oral hearing is set for 5 February 2026 and Munich’s for 18 June 2026, so the local division will know the Paris outcome, and that the same technically qualified judge sits on both panels, which ensures consistency. The application was dismissed. A panel review remains available (Rule 333 RoP).

Key points for practice

Practical point: joinder under Rule 302.3 RoP requires proceedings pending before the same division, between a local division and the central division, coordination comes through scheduling and panel composition, not through the parties’ agreement.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 56.3, 102.2, 302.3 and 333

Related decisions

Belparts Group v IMI Hydronic International, 15 May 2025, Munich Local Division order setting the timetable in the same action.
IMI Hydronics Engineering v Belparts Group, 23 September 2025, Paris Central Division order in the parallel proceedings UPC_CFI_364/2025.

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantBelparts Group N.V.7 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de jonction avec la demande reconventionnelle en contrefaçon pendante devant la division centrale de Paris est rejetée, la règle 302.3 exigeant que les procédures soient pendantes devant la même division.
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 3 812 870 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

IMI Hydronics Engineering Deut v Belparts Group (CFI, 23 September 2025) cited in this record
Belparts Group v IMI Hydronic International (CFI, 15 May 2025) cited in this record

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

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, 18 Decembe · IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland v Belparts Group (CFI, 3 November · 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

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.