UPC CFI 1963/2025

At the UPC: Valeo Group (34 cases)·ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (6 cases)

• 2026-07-18
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: The Paris Local Division judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's application under R. 9.3 RoP to have its deadlines run only from receipt of an unredacted version of Valeo's brief of 15 June 2026. The Court found that an unredacted version had in fact been filed in the CMS alongside the redacted one, that the redacted passages came from Bosch's own exhibits BP6 to BP8 already covered by the confidentiality order of 30 April 2026, and that Bosch could have contacted the opposing representative or the registry at once instead of raising the issue more than a month later. The deadlines under R. 29(d) RoP therefore run from 15 June 2026.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • extension of time under R. 9.3 RoP where a brief is served in redacted form
  • filing of an unredacted version in the CMS alongside the redacted version
  • scope of an existing confidentiality order over the redacted passages
  • a party's own lack of diligence cannot justify additional time
  • filing in the infringement circuit alone where the revocation counterclaim is linked in the CMS
• 2026-07-15
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: The judge-rapporteur authorized Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage to unconditionally limit its infringement claims against Bosch defendants 1-4 by excluding certain product references (APX16, APX17, APX19, APX20, APX24, APX26, APX28) and by restricting territorial scope to France only (excluding Belgium and Germany). Valeo was also authorized to withdraw all claims against Defendant 5 (BOSCH PRODUKTIE). No costs award was made at this stage.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • Limitation of infringement claims to exclude certain products (R. 263 RoP)
  • Withdrawal of claims against one defendant (R. 265 RoP)
  • Territorial limitation of infringement claims
  • Costs allocation upon partial withdrawal
• 2026-03-23
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: Paris Local Division (panel, on R.333 review) upheld the Judge-Rapporteur's order of 17 February 2026 rejecting Bosch's preliminary objections to the territorial competence of Paris Local Division. The panel confirmed that Art. 33.1(b) UPCA requires only a commercial link between all defendants (not a direct link between the anchor defendant and each co-defendant), and that 'same infringement' means infringement of the same patent by all defendants, not identical products.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Panel review of procedural order (R. 333 RoP)
  • Territorial competence / jurisdiction (Art. 33.1(b) UPCA)
  • Commercial link between defendants
  • Same infringement requirement
  • Multi-defendant proceedings
• 2026-02-17
  Infringement ActionPublic

  Summary: Paris Local Division rejected all of Bosch's preliminary objections to the jurisdiction and internal competence of the Paris Local Division in Valeo's infringement action. The court held that the condition in Art.33.1(b) UPCA ('action relates to the same infringement') requires violation of the same patent by all defendants but does not require identical infringing products. The Paris Local Division was found competent for all defendants. Costs deferred to merits decision.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Internal competence of Paris Local Division (Art.33.1(b) UPCA)
  • Same infringement condition with multiple defendants
  • Preliminary objection (R.19 RoP)