UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 4/2026

7. Jan. 2026·EP2671766 +1 more: Hydraulic connector, in particular for a windscreen-wiper system of a motor vehicle

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Oral Phase
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Lionel Martin (August Debouzy, Paris, France)
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technology
Automotive
Sprache
French
Erste Entscheidung
21. Jan. 2026
Letzte Entscheidung
3. Apr. 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-04-03
    motionName.otherSimultaneous Interpretation

    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:Request for simultaneous interpretation under R. 109 RoPLanguage of proceedings in appeal before Court of AppealRepresentative's oral proficiency in language of proceedingsFlexible and balanced procedure under UPC preamble
  • 2026-04-03
    motionName.otherSimultaneous Interpretation

    The Court of Appeal denied the respondents' (Bosch entities) request for simultaneous interpretation (French to/from English) at the oral hearing scheduled for 27 April 2026. The rapporteur judge instead ordered that the hearing would be conducted entirely in English, accommodating both parties' practical needs and the language in which first-instance proceedings were being conducted.

    Rechtsfragen:Simultaneous interpretation request under R. 109 RoPLanguage of proceedings at appeal stageObligation of parties to be represented by a representative proficient in the language of proceedings (Art. 48 UPCA, R. 8.1 RoP)Procedural flexibility and efficiency (UPC RoP Preamble para. 4 and 5)
  • 2026-02-11
    BerufungsentscheidungAppeal RoP220.2

    Court of Appeal ruled on the admissibility of Valeo's appeal against the CFI's order on a preliminary objection. The appeal was declared admissible under R.220.2 RoP. The CoA also rejected Bosch's alternative request for a stay of the first-instance proceedings pending the appeal, finding that no exceptional circumstances justified a stay. The admissibility ruling concerned the correct appeal route where the judge-rapporteur allowed a preliminary objection but did not terminate proceedings as to all defendants.

    Rechtsfragen:Admissibility of appeal against preliminary objection order (R.220.1, R.220.2 RoP, Art.73 UPCA)Appeal route for order allowing preliminary objection without terminating proceedingsStay of first-instance proceedings pending appeal (R.21.2 RoP)
  • 2026-02-11
    BerufungsentscheidungAppeal RoP220.2

    French-language signed version of the Court of Appeal admissibility ruling in Valeo v. Bosch. Identical in substance to the English version: Valeo's appeal against the CFI preliminary objection order declared admissible under R.220.2 RoP; Bosch's alternative request for a stay of first-instance proceedings rejected as no exceptional circumstances existed.

    Rechtsfragen:Admissibility of appeal against preliminary objection order (R.220.1, R.220.2 RoP)Stay of first-instance proceedings (R.21.2 RoP)Appeal route for partial preliminary objection ruling
  • 2026-01-21
    BerufungsentscheidungAppeal RoP220.2

    Court of Appeal procedural order in the Valeo v. Bosch appeal concerning jurisdiction and language of proceedings. Paris Central Division had granted Bosch's preliminary objection, ordering transfer to Düsseldorf Local Division with English as language. Valeo appealed under R. 220.2 RoP requesting the Court of Appeal rule Paris Central Division has jurisdiction and French is the language.

    Rechtsfragen:Jurisdiction of Central Division vs. Local Division (Art. 33 UPCA)Language of proceedingsAppeal under R. 220.2 RoPPreliminary objection on competence
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseClose2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Hearing recording reference document2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
action.communication.general2026-04-17Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-03Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-04-03Öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-30Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-30Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-03-30Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-03-30Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-03-30Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-03-30Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-25Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-03-25Öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-25Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-25Nicht öffentlich
Application Respondent2026-03-25Nicht öffentlich
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseOpen2026-03-19Nicht öffentlich
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseClose2026-03-19Nicht öffentlich
action.summons.oralHearing2026-03-19Nicht öffentlich
Summons2026-03-19Öffentlich
Receipt2026-03-16Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-03-16Nicht öffentlich
Document Respondent2026-03-16Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-13Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-03-13Öffentlich
Receipt2026-02-26Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-02-26Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Response2026-02-26Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-26Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-26Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-26Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-02-11Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-02-11Öffentlich
Receipt2026-02-02Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-02-02Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-02Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-01Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-01Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-01Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-02-01Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-01-29Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-01-29Öffentlich
Receipt2026-01-28Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-01-28Nicht öffentlich
Document2026-01-28Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit2026-01-28Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit2026-01-28Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit2026-01-28Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-01-21Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-01-21Öffentlich
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-01-20Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-01-19Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-01-19Nicht öffentlich
Statement of claim2026-01-19Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-19Nicht öffentlich
Further pleadings2026-01-19Nicht öffentlich
Formal Deficiency found2026-01-14Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Fee2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Proof of payment2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Appeal2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Statement of the Grounds of Appeal2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Simultaneous interpretation is not justified merely because a party's representative lacks oral proficiency in the language of proceedings; parties must ensure their representatives are conversant in that language

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 109 RoP; Art. 48 UPCA; R. 8.1 RoP; CoA 317/2025 and CoA 376/2025 (Barco v Yealink, 21 Aug 2025); CoA_404/2023 (Ocado, 8 Feb 2024)

  • Considerations of pragmatism and procedural efficiency justify conducting the hearing in English for all parties, given that first-instance proceedings and written submissions were being conducted in English

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: UPC RoP Preamble para. 4 and 5
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Simultaneous interpretation (French/English) should be ordered under R. 109.1 and R. 109.2 RoP because the respondents' representative is not sufficiently proficient in French oral expression, and proceedings in first instance were reorganised in English following the contested orders

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 109.1 and R. 109.2 RoP

  • In the alternative, simultaneous interpretation should be arranged at the claimant's or respondents' expense under R. 109.2 second sentence RoP

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 109.2 RoP