Robert Bosch Doo Beograd v Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage (CoA, 15 May 2026)

Date	15 May 2026
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Appeal RoP220.2
Registry reference	UPC-CoA-50/2026
Parties	ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUC…

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 15 May 2026 (UPC_CoA_50/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal, after consulting the presiding judge of the first panel, ordered that the oral hearing of 26 May 2026 be conducted in English, without calling into question French as the language of the proceedings. The appeal was brought by six Bosch companies against the Paris Local Division’s order of 23 March 2026 rejecting their preliminary objection in Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage’s action for infringement of EP 4 144 599 (UPC_CFI_1963/2025).

Question

May the oral hearing of an appeal be held in English where the language of the proceedings is French?

Decision

The appellants argued that their representative understands French but cannot speak it well enough to plead effectively, and that an interpreter under Rule 109.4 would be less effective (paragraph 8). The judge-rapporteur relied on the principles of flexibility and efficiency and on the need to take account of all parties’ legitimate interests (Preamble to the Rules of Procedure, paragraphs 4 and 5), on the respondent’s comments, which supported an English hearing, and on the approach taken between the same parties in the joined appeals (paragraphs 10 and 11). As the main request was granted, the alternative request was not addressed (paragraph 12).

Key points for practice

With the other party’s agreement, the hearing may be conducted in a language other than the language of the proceedings, without changing the latter (paragraph 11).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Preamble, paragraphs 4 and 5, Rules 19 and 109.4
Case law cited: Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch France, Court of Appeal, 3 April 2026

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.

Decisions in the same proceedings

ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD (CoA, 2026-06-22), 22 June 2026

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.

First instance cited in the decision: UPC_CFI_1963/2025

Parties

claimantROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRADnormalised name: ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd6 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS11 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantROBERT BOSCH GMBHnormalised name: ROBERT BOSCH GmbH12 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantROBERT BOSCH S.A.11 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A.7 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantBOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUC2 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

17 February 2026 VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 17 February 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1963/2025
Les exceptions préliminaires sont rejetées : les défenderesses, membres d'un même groupe participant à la fabrication ou à la vente des produits, sont poursuivies pour la même contrefaçon alléguée d'un même brevet, sans qu'il soit nécessaire que les produits soient identiques, l'autorisation d'appel est refusée.
23 March 2026 Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch d.o.o. Beograd (CFI, 23 March 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1963/2025
La formation confirme la compétence de la division locale de Paris au titre de l'article 33, paragraphe 1, b) : le lien commercial s'apprécie entre sociétés d'un même groupe et la même contrefaçon s'entend de l'atteinte aux revendications d'un même brevet, la règle 19.5 n'emporte pas rejet de l'action. L'appel est auto…
15 July 2026 VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 15 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1963/2025
Les limitations territoriales et l'exclusion de produits sont des limitations inconditionnelles accordées de droit. Le retrait des demandes contre Robert Bosch Produktie est autorisé faute d'intérêt légitime des défenderesses à s'y opposer, et les frais sont renvoyés.
18 July 2026 VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 18 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1963/2025
Le juge rapporteur de la division locale de Paris rejette la demande de prorogation de Bosch et dit que les délais de la règle 29(d) courent du dépôt des écritures de Valeo dans le CMS, le 15 juin 2026.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Appeal RoP220.2
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le juge rapporteur de la cour d'appel ordonne que les débats de l'audience du 26 mai 2026 se tiennent en anglais, sans remise en cause du français comme langue de procédure.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_1963/2025).
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 4 144 599 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Robert Bosch doo Beograd v Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage (CoA, 22 June 2026) cited in this record
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE (CoA, 3 April 2026) cited in this record

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 4 144 599`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 5 other decision(s): VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 18 July 202 · VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 15 July 202 · Robert Bosch doo Beograd v Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage (CoA, 22 June 202 · Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch d.o.o. Beograd (CFI, 23 March · VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 17 February	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet 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.