Magna International France v Valeo Electrification (CoA, 11 December 2024)
| Date | 11 December 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Generic Order |
| Registry reference | ORD_65525/2024 |
| Parties | Magna 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.
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
- A refusal to rectify an omission that was apparent from the record can justify partial suspensive effect on appeal.
- A party seeking a proportionality exemption should list the products and models concerned precisely.
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
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
- defendantValeo Electrification18 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- 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 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
EP 3 320 602mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- NUNA International v CYBEX (CoA, 21 August 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 320 602Rotary 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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 |
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.