UPC_CoA_13/2026

Decisions and documents (2)

• 2026-06-22procedural

  Appelante:

  Valeo Systèmes d’essuyage

  Intimees:

  BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.; ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd; ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS; ROBERT BOSCH GmbH; ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A; ROBERT BOSCH S.A

  Appeal RoP220.2. Document: ORDER_VALEO v BOSCH_004 and 013-2026_2026-06-22_FR_Signed.pdf. Case page: https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/node/183576

  • Panel: Ingeborg Simonsson🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-06-22procedural

  Appellant:

  Valeo Systèmes d’essuyage

  Respondents:

  BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.; ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd; ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS; ROBERT BOSCH GmbH; ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A; ROBERT BOSCH S.A

  (i) The provisions of the third subparagraph of Article 33(1) UPCA do not constitute an exception to the competence of the local and regional divisions to hear infringement actions in the circumstances set out in points (a) and (b) of Article 33(1). Neither the wording of that provision, which contains no limitation on the competence of the central division in respect of defendants established outside the territory of the Contracting Member States, nor the position of that provision within Article 33(1), where it follows the provisions of that article relating to the competence of the local and regional divisions, supports the conclusion that, in respect of defendants established outside the territory of the Contracting Member States, the competence of the central division must be interpreted as constituting an exception to the competence of the local or regional divisions. (ii) In the case of defendants having their residence outside the territory of the Contracting Member States (Article 33(1), third subparagraph), the central division has competence, thereby taking the place, as it does in the situation of a defendant having its residence in the territory of a Contracting Member State which does not host a local division and which does not participate in a regional division, of a local or regional division which, in the presence of co-defendants having their residence in the territory of a Contracting Member State, would have competence under the provisions applicable to defendants having their residence in the territory of a Contracting Member State (Article 33(1)(b)). (iii) Just as in the situation of multiple defendants among whom one defendant has its residence in the territory of a Contracting Member State which does not host a local division and does not participate in a regional division, where there are co-defendants, some of whom have their residence in the territory of a Contracting Member State and others have their residence outside the territory of the Contracting Member States, it is equally necessary to avoid parallel proceedings before different divisions and the risk of contradictory decisions that could result. A different solution, which would have the effect of requiring the claimant to bring its action exclusively before the local or regional division that would have competence by reason of the residence or (principal) place of business of one or more other defendants having their residence in the territory of a Contracting Member State which hosts a local division or participates in a regional division, would be contrary to the ratio legis of the third subparagraph of Article 33(1) UPCA. According to that rationale, the central division becomes the competent division to hear the action where no local or regional division has competence by reference to the residence or (principal) place of business of one of the other defendants. (iv) In such a situation, the competence of the central division is determined by applying the mechanism set out in point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 33(1) UPCA. In order to give effect to the rule of competence laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 33(1), that mechanism applies both to the defendant or defendants whose residence or (principal) place of business is situated outside the territory of a Contracting Member State and to the other defendants. Appeal no.:

  • Panel: Ingeborg Simonsson, Emmanuel Gougé🔒 Unlock Official PDF