Valeo Electrification v Magna PT (CFI, 2 September 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 2 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_368/2024, ACT_39183/2024, App_48679/2024), the Deputy President of the Court of First Instance (C. Lignieres), on behalf of the President, dismissed the Magna companies’ application for review of the allocation of the technically qualified judge in the provisional measures proceedings brought by Valeo Electrification before the Düsseldorf Local Division on EP 3 320 604. The order closes the door on parties challenging the technical profile of a judge.

Question

Can a party obtain the replacement of the technically qualified judge allocated to the panel by a judge with experience in another technical field, here mechanical engineering?

Decision

No. The technically qualified judge is one of the judges of the panel under the provisions on the Court of First Instance, and the legal texts give the parties no opportunity to make suggestions on the technical background of an allocated judge, unlike the appointment of a court expert (Rule 185.2 RoP). The only ground on which a party may object to a judge taking part is partiality (Art. 7(4), as cited in the order). Magna’s application, made under Rule 9(1) RoP and forwarded to the President by the judge-rapporteur (Rule 33.3 RoP), is dismissed. Valeo had opposed it.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: the choice of technically qualified judge is a matter for allocation by the President, a party may challenge it only for partiality, not because the judge’s field seems ill-suited.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 7(4), 18(3), 19 and 20 (as cited in the order)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.1, 33.3 and 185.2

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.