Valeo Electrification v Magna PT (CFI, ORD_60264/2024, 20 November 2024)
| Date | 20 November 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_59992/2024 · ORD_60264/2024 |
| Parties | Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 20 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_368/2024, App_59992/2024), the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the application for rectification filed by Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. and Magna International France against the provisional measures order of 31 October 2024 in favour of Valeo Electrification (EP 3 320 604 B1). The order draws narrow limits around Rule 353 RoP: it corrects what the Court expressed wrongly, not what a party would have liked it to say or what it left out.
Question
Could the defendants obtain, by way of rectification, the addition of a BMW model to the carve-out for their existing commitments, clarification of the scope of the entitlement action pending in Paris and an amendment to a passage on a 2019 nomination letter?
Decision
An obvious slip covers any incorrect or incomplete statement of what the Court actually intended (part I). The « 2 Series Gran Coupé » had not been raised before the rectification application, and the list of five models had been undisputed, so there was no slip (II.1). Rule 353 RoP covers mistakes and slips, not omissions: the passage on the French part of the patent was not wrong, and the Division did not need to address the German part (II.2). On the nomination letter, the defendants were substituting their own reading for the Court’s assessment, which is no ground for rectification (II.3). Submissions filed on 17 and 18 November 2024 outside any time limit set by the Court were disregarded (Rule 9.2 RoP, part III).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: rectification cannot be used to introduce a new fact or fill an omission, a challenge on the merits belongs in an appeal.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 9.2 and 353
- Case law cited
- myStromer v Revolt Zycling, Düsseldorf Local Division, 30 June 2023
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.
Going further
Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Proceedings
Parties
- claimantMagna International France, SARL12 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantMagna PT s.r.o12 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantMagna PT B.V. & Co. KG12 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande de rectification est rejetée : la règle 353 corrige les erreurs et inexactitudes manifestes, non les omissions ni les désaccords sur l'appréciation de la juridiction.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 320 604mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- myStromer v Revolt Zycling (CFI, 30 June 2023) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 320 604 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 5 other decision(s): Valeo Electrification v Magna PT (CFI, ORD_56534/2024, 31 October 2024 · Valeo Electrification v Magna PT (CoA, ORD_68770/2024, 13 January 2025 · Valeo Electrification v Magna PT (CFI, ORD_68629/2024, 10 January 2025 · Valeo Electrification v Magna PT (CFI, 28 November 2024) · Valeo Electrification v Magna PT (CFI, 2 September 2024) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.