UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 2070/2025

Dec 19, 2025·EP2937706 · VOLTAGE DETECTION MEMBER AND BATTERY MODULE INCLUDING SAME

Follow
Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Paris LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
  • Instruments
    Measurement
Language
English
First decided
Apr 14, 2026
Last decision
May 27, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Paris LDLockedLocked
Judge Camille LignièresLockedLocked
Judge Carine GilletLockedLocked
Judge Anna-Lena KleinLockedLocked
Judge Hergen KapelsLockedLocked

At the UPC: BMS Innovations, LLC (4 cases)·BYD Company Ltd (4 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 2 other proceedings

UPC CFI 2437/2026·UPC CFI 1744/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Paris LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-05-27
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Paris Local Division ordered BMS Innovations, LLC (claimant in the main infringement proceedings) to provide security for costs of EUR 300,000 within one month, pursuant to Rule 158 RoP and Article 69(4) UPCA. The court assessed the total value of proceedings at EUR 8 million (infringement action EUR 4 million plus revocation counterclaim at equal value) and set the security at 50% of the EUR 600,000 recoverable costs ceiling.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Security for costs under Rule 158 RoP and Article 69(4) UPCA
    • Financial capacity of non-practicing entity claimant
    • Valuation of infringement action and revocation counterclaim for recoverable costs ceiling
    • Proportionate amount of security for costs
    • Timeframe for payment of ordered security
  • 2026-04-14
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The judge-rapporteur ruled on a preliminary objection (R.19 RoP) concerning international jurisdiction. The UPC's jurisdiction over Defendants 1 and 2 (domiciled in China) for alleged infringing acts in the UK is deferred to the decision on the merits, while the preliminary objection against Defendant 7 (BYD UK, domiciled in the UK) is upheld — the Paris Local Division has no international jurisdiction over a defendant domiciled in a third country who is not alleged to have committed any infringing act within EU/UPC territory. The request for a preliminary ruling referral to the CJEU is rejected.

    Show the legal issues (8)
    • International jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in third countries (non-UPC, non-EU)
    • Application of Article 8(1) Brussels I bis (Regulation 1215/2012) to multiple defendants
    • Application of Article 71b(2) Brussels I bis to defendants domiciled outside the EU
    • UPC jurisdiction for alleged infringing acts committed exclusively in a third country (UK)
    • Risk of irreconcilable judgments as basis for long-arm jurisdiction
    • Admissibility and timing of preliminary objection (R.19 RoP)
    • Referral to CJEU for preliminary ruling on Brussels I bis interpretation
    • Whether oral hearing is required in preliminary objection proceedings (R.20.1 RoP)
Documents
Show all 158 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Communication2026-10-19Not public
Order2026-10-09Not public
Order2026-10-09Public
Receipt2026-10-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-10-02Not public
Document2026-10-02Not public
Receipt2026-09-22Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-22Not public
Statement of rejoinder2026-09-22Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-09-22Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The UPC lacks international jurisdiction over Defendant 7 (BYD UK) because it is domiciled in a third country (UK) and the alleged infringing acts take place exclusively in the UK — there is no connection with UPC or EU territory, so jurisdiction cannot be based on Art. 4, Art. 7(2), or Art. 8(1) Brussels I bis

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 4(1), Art. 7(2), Art. 8(1), Art. 71b(2) Brussels I bis (Regulation 1215/2012); Art. 31 UPCA

  • The question of jurisdiction over Defendants 1 and 2 (China-domiciled) for UK infringement acts is closely connected to claims against EU-domiciled defendants and should be examined at the merits stage to avoid risk of irreconcilable judgments

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 8(1), Art. 71b(2) Brussels I bis; R.21.1 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Article 8(1) Brussels I bis can confer jurisdiction on the UPC over Defendant 7 (BYD UK) for acts committed exclusively in the UK, given the close connection with claims against other defendants

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 8(1), Art. 71b(2) Brussels I bis

  • A preliminary ruling referral to the CJEU is necessary on the interpretation of Art. 8(1) and Art. 71b(2) Brussels I bis regarding third-country defendants and irreconcilable judgments

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 267 TFEU

  • An oral hearing should be held before ruling on the preliminary objection

    ClaimantLegal basis: R.20.1 RoP