Opens in a new tab

Magna International France v Valeo Electrification (CoA, 11 December 2024)

Date11 December 2024
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionGeneric Order
Registry referenceORD_65525/2024
PartiesMagna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v. Valeo Electrification

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

In an order of 11 December 2024 (UPC_CoA_719/2024), the Court of Appeal partly suspended the preliminary injunction granted on 31 October 2024 by the Düsseldorf Local Division against the Magna companies in favour of Valeo Electrification (EP 3 320 602). The Division had exempted Magna’s supply obligations for five BMW models from the injunction, without including the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé, and then refused to rectify that omission. The Court held that this refusal was obviously wrong and suspended the injunction for that model until it decides the appeal. The order shows that suspensive effect may be confined to part of the operative provisions.

Question

Should the preliminary injunction be suspended pending appeal insofar as it covers a car model left out of the list of exemptions granted on proportionality grounds?

Decision

The evidence on file referred to six car models already on the market or about to be introduced which were fitted with the attacked embodiment, citing the internal code F74 of the 2 Series Gran Coupé (paragraphs 12 to 16). No valid reason was given or apparent for excluding that model from the proportionality exemption (paragraph 17). The Division could and should have deduced from the record that the model belonged on the list, or asked Magna at the hearing. It was obviously wrong not to correct the order (paragraphs 18 and 19). The order therefore remains suspended insofar as it covers that model (paragraph 20), extending the interim suspension granted by the standing judge until the appeal is decided.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 223.4 and 353

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: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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 Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
L’injonction provisoire est suspendue jusqu’à la décision sur l’appel en tant qu’elle vise la BMW Série 2 Gran Coupé, la division ayant manifestement eu tort de ne pas l’ajouter à la liste des modèles exemptés.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

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 3 320 602
Rotary electric machine provided with a reservoir of lubricant for lubricating a rolling bearing and for cooling the machine
recorded proprietor: Valeo Equipements Electriques Moteur SAS
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 11 other decision(s): Valeo Electrification v Magna PT (CFI, ORD_56545/2024, 31 October 2024 · Valeo Electrification v Magna PT (CoA, ORD_68769/2024, 13 January 2025 · Valeo Electrification v Magna PT (CFI, ORD_68626/2024, 10 January 2025 · Valeo Electrification v Magna PT (CFI, 12 December 2024) · Magna PT v Valeo Electrification (CoA, 21 November 2024) · Valeo Electrification v Magna PT (CFI, ORD_60265/2024, 20 November 202 · Magna International France v Valeo Electrification (CoA, 14 November 2 · Valeo Electrification v Magna PT (CFI, 25 September 2024)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
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.