UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CoA 13/2026

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

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Division
Court of Appeal
Technology
Automotive
Language
English
First decided
Jun 22, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-06-22
    Appeal decisionAppeal RoP220.2

    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.

    Legal issues:Jurisdiction of local/regional divisions versus central division under Article 33(1) UPCACompetence of the Central Division for defendants domiciled outside contracting member statesPreliminary objection procedure (R. 19 RoP)Language of proceedingsMultiple defendants with mixed domicile (inside and outside UPC contracting states)
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-06-22Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-06-22Not public
Final Order2026-06-22Public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseClose2026-05-04Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-05-04Not public
action.communication.general2026-04-17Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-03Not public
Order2026-04-03Public
Receipt2026-03-30Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-30Not public
Other document Appellant2026-03-30Not public
Other document Appellant2026-03-30Not public
Other document Appellant2026-03-30Not public
Other document Appellant2026-03-30Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-25Not public
Order2026-03-25Public
Receipt2026-03-25Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-25Not public
Application Respondent2026-03-25Not public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseOpen2026-03-19Not public
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseClose2026-03-19Not public
action.summons.oralHearing2026-03-19Not public
Summons2026-03-19Public
Receipt2026-03-16Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-16Not public
Document Respondent2026-03-16Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-13Not public
Order2026-03-13Public
Receipt2026-02-26Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-26Not public
Statement of Response2026-02-26Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-26Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-26Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-26Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-26Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-26Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-26Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-02-11Not public
Receipt2026-02-05Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-05Not public
Fee2026-02-05Not public
Proof of payment2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-02-05Not public
Statement of the Grounds of Appeal2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-02-05Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.
  • 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Article 33(1) UPCA
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.
  • The Central Division's competence for defendants outside contracting member states is an exception that excludes the jurisdiction of local/regional divisions

    RespondentLegal basis: Article 33(1) UPCA
  • Only defendants accused of infringement in the same territories/products constitute the 'same alleged infringement' for jurisdictional purposes

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: Article 33(1) UPCA