UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CoA 4/2026

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

Case details
Status
Oral Phase
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Lionel Martin (August Debouzy, Paris, France)
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
Automotive
Language
French
First decided
Jan 21, 2026
Last decision
Apr 3, 2026
Decisions
  • 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.

    Legal issues: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.

    Legal issues: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
    Appeal decisionAppeal 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.

    Legal issues: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
    Appeal decisionAppeal 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.

    Legal issues: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
    Appeal decisionAppeal 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.

    Legal issues:Jurisdiction of Central Division vs. Local Division (Art. 33 UPCA)Language of proceedingsAppeal under R. 220.2 RoPPreliminary objection on competence
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
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
action.issueOrder.order2026-02-11Not public
Order2026-02-11Public
Receipt2026-02-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-02Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-02Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-01Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-01Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-01Not public
Other document Appellant2026-02-01Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-01-29Not public
Order2026-01-29Public
Receipt2026-01-28Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-28Not public
Document2026-01-28Not public
Exhibit2026-01-28Not public
Exhibit2026-01-28Not public
Exhibit2026-01-28Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-01-21Not public
Order2026-01-21Public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-01-20Not public
Receipt2026-01-19Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-19Not public
Statement of claim2026-01-19Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-19Not public
Further pleadings2026-01-19Not public
Formal Deficiency found2026-01-14Not public
Receipt2026-01-07Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-07Not public
Fee2026-01-07Not public
Proof of payment2026-01-07Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Statement of the Grounds of Appeal2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2026-01-07Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: UPC RoP Preamble para. 4 and 5
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 109.2 RoP