UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 13/2026

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

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Transport
Language
English
First decided
Apr 3, 2026
Last decision
Jun 22, 2026
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Klaus GrabinskiLocked
Judge Emmanuel GougéLocked
Judge Ingeborg SimonssonLocked

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

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

This dispute contains 2 other proceedings

UPC CoA 4/2026·UPC CFI 809/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2026

Decisions
  • 2026-06-22
    Appeal RoP220.2Public

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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 InterpretationPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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
Documents
Show all 64 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-06-22Not public
Decision2026-06-22Not public
Final Order2026-06-22Public
Oral procedure closed2026-05-04Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-05-04Not public
Communication2026-04-17Not public
Order2026-04-03Not public
Order2026-04-03Public
Receipt2026-03-30Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-30Not 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