Belparts v IMI Hydronic (UPC_CFI_801/2024 & UPC_CFI_392/2025)
Decision date:
04 September 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- The parties are engaged in parallel proceedings in the Munich CD and LD.
- Belparts requested that the Munich LD also hear the infringement counterclaim from the CD, pursuant to Rule 302(3) RoP, which relates to cases in the same division brought by a plurality of claimants or in respect of a plurality of patents. The alleged infringers in both actions (IMI) were from the same group of companies, and Belparts maintained that consolidation and a joint hearing would help ensure a consistent and uniform application of UPC law. IMI had consented to the proposed consolidation.
- Despite IMI's consent, the Munich LD refused the request.
- Rule 302(3) RoP requires that, in order to be consolidated, parallel actions should be pending "before the same local or regional division or the central division". However, these actions were pending between different divisions, the Munich CD and LD. The court noted that the hearing in the Munich CD would take place about 4 months earlier than the Munich LD hearing, so the Munich LD "will be aware of the outcome and can decide on its own case accordingly", and that the same technically qualified judge was on both panels which "will ensure consistent decisions".
- The parties might have been more successful if they had requested a connection joinder under Rule 340 RoP; however, this option was not suggested by the court.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.