Opens in a new tab

Valeo Electrification v Magna PT (CFI, ORD_60264/2024, 20 November 2024)

Date20 November 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_59992/2024 · ORD_60264/2024
PartiesMagna 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 320 604Mentioned 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.