Robert Bosch doo Beograd v Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage (CoA, 22 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal of six Bosch group companies against the order of the Paris Local Division rejecting their preliminary objection to jurisdiction in the action for infringement of EP 4 144 599 brought by Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage. It defines the two conditions of Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA that apply where several defendants are sued before the division of one defendant’s domicile: a commercial relationship and the same alleged infringement. For practitioners, the order makes it easier to sue related companies operating in separate channels together, provided the products concerned are substantially the same.

Facts and procedure

On 12 December 2025, Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage sued Robert Bosch doo Beograd, Robert Bosch France SAS, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A., Robert Bosch Produktie S.A. and Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd. before the Paris Local Division for infringement of EP 4 144 599, which concerns a wiper blade adapter, in Germany, Belgium and France. The products are sold as MOPAR, BYD (for the Denza Z9) and AEROTWIN (paragraph 1). The defendants’ preliminary objections were joined and rejected by the judge-rapporteur on 17 February 2026, the panel then rejected the request for review under Rule 333 RoP on 23 March 2026 and granted leave to appeal (paragraphs 2 to 5). The appeal, lodged on 7 April 2026 within the 15-day period of Rule 220.2 RoP, is admissible (paragraphs 6 and 10).

Bosch argued that the anchor defendant had to take part in each of the two supply chains concerned, and that Robert Bosch France was not involved in the BYD chain in China, nor Bosch China in the MOPAR and AEROTWIN chains in Europe (paragraph 7).

The applicable law

Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA allows an action against several defendants to be brought before the division of one defendant’s domicile, provided the defendants have a commercial relationship and the action relates to the same alleged infringement (paragraphs 11 and 12). At the stage of a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP, jurisdiction is decided on a summary review of the facts, without a full assessment of the evidence or of the merits (paragraph 16, citing Barco v Yealink).

Question

Does a commercial relationship require the anchor defendant to take part in every supply chain, and does the same alleged infringement require identical products sold through the same channels?

Decision

The Court of Appeal answers no on both counts. A commercial relationship means dealings between the defendants in commercial activities relating to the accused product or range, such as research and development, manufacture, sale and distribution (paragraph 13). Membership of the same group may establish it if each company’s activity relates to those products (paragraph 14). The relationship may be direct or indirect, through other group companies or third parties. It requires neither a single supply chain nor the anchor defendant’s involvement in each one (paragraph 15). Here, the products result from an organised division of design, production and marketing among all the appellants, each taking part in at least one stage. Robert Bosch France markets the MOPAR and AEROTWIN products, and Bosch China is involved in marketing the systems for the Denza Z9 (paragraphs 17 and 18).

The same alleged infringement requires the same patent and the same product or range: the products must appear substantially the same, whatever their trade name, and there is no need to show that they follow the same distribution channels (paragraphs 19 and 20). Valeo filed photographs showing the same structure and apparently identical dimensions. Bosch, which merely referred to « two distinct products », identified no relevant difference (paragraphs 21 to 24). The Paris Local Division has jurisdiction and the request to dismiss the action is moot (paragraphs 25 and 26).

Key points for practice

• The anchor defendant need not take part in each distribution channel for the accused products (paragraph 15).
• Group membership is enough only if each company’s activity relates to the accused products (paragraph 14).
• Different trade names or markets (original equipment, aftermarket) do not prevent a finding of the same alleged infringement (paragraphs 20 and 21).
• Practical point: a party disputing the identity of the products must point to specific material or structural differences, a bare assertion that the products are distinct will not do (paragraph 23).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 25, 26 and 33(1)(b)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 220.2 and 333

Case law cited

Barco v Yealink, Court of Appeal, 28 November 2025

Related decisions

• Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch doo Beograd, 17 February 2026, judge-rapporteur’s order rejecting the preliminary objections.
• Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch doo, 23 March 2026, panel order on review, upheld on appeal.
• Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch France, 22 June 2026, order of the same day on the Central Division’s jurisdiction in parallel proceedings.

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.