UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 13/2026

5. Feb. 2026·EP2671766 · Hydraulic connector, in particular for a windscreen-wiper system of a motor vehicle

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technologie
  • Mechanical engineering
    Transport
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
3. Apr. 2026
Letzte Entscheidung
22. Juni 2026
Im Vergleich
Wie lange das Gericht bis zu einer ersten Entscheidung braucht.
Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC124
Richter Klaus GrabinskiGesperrt
Richter Emmanuel GougéGesperrt
Richter Ingeborg SimonssonGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Valeo Group (34 Verfahren)·ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (6 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

Dieser Streit umfasst 2 weitere Verfahren

UPC CoA 4/2026·UPC CFI 809/2025

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Court of Appeal·2026

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-06-22
    Appeal RoP220.2Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal reversed the orders of the Central Division (Paris Section) dated 23 December 2025 and 21 January 2026 that had declined jurisdiction. The Court ruled that the Central Division (Paris Section) has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action (UPC_CFI_809/2025) brought by Valeo against respondents (1) to (6), and that the language of the proceedings is French. The request for costs was rejected as the order does not terminate the substantive proceedings.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Jurisdiction of local/regional divisions versus central division under Article 33(1) UPCA
    • Competence of the Central Division for defendants domiciled outside contracting member states
    • Preliminary objection procedure (R. 19 RoP)
    • Language of proceedings
    • Multiple defendants with mixed domicile (inside and outside UPC contracting states)
  • 2026-04-03
    Simultaneous InterpretationÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal rejected the Respondents' request for simultaneous interpretation (R. 109 RoP) for the hearing scheduled on 27 April 2026. The judge-rapporteur ordered that the hearing would be conducted in English, accommodating both parties' practical preparation in that language without prejudicing the pending appeal decision on the language of proceedings in UPC_CFI_809/2025.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • Request for simultaneous interpretation under R. 109 RoP
    • Language of proceedings in appeal before Court of Appeal
    • Representative's oral proficiency in language of proceedings
    • Flexible and balanced procedure under UPC preamble
Dokumente
Alle 64 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-06-22Nicht öffentlich
Entscheidung2026-06-22Nicht öffentlich
Final Order2026-06-22Öffentlich
Mündliches Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Hearing recording reference document2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-04-17Nicht öffentlich
Anordnung2026-04-03Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-04-03Öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-30Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-30Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Article 33(1) third paragraph UPCA does not constitute an exception to the jurisdiction of local/regional divisions; the Central Division steps in as a substitute when no local/regional division is competent due to a defendant's domicile outside the contracting member states

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Article 33(1) UPCA

  • Where co-defendants include both parties domiciled inside and outside contracting member states, the risk of parallel proceedings and contradictory decisions requires treating the Central Division as the competent forum via the Article 33(1)(b) mechanism

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Article 33(1)(b) UPCA

  • The same alleged infringement (same patent) covers all defendants regardless of which territories or products are at issue for each, satisfying the requirement of the same alleged infringement

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Article 33(1) UPCA
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • The Central Division's competence for defendants outside contracting member states is an exception that excludes the jurisdiction of local/regional divisions

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Article 33(1) UPCA

  • Only defendants accused of infringement in the same territories/products constitute the 'same alleged infringement' for jurisdictional purposes

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Article 33(1) UPCA

  • Valeo should be required to bring its action exclusively before the local/regional division competent for the defendants domiciled in a contracting member state

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Article 33(1) UPCA