Valeo Electrification v SEG Automotive (CFI, UPC_CFI_1913/2026, 22 October 2026)

Date	22 October 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Paris (FR) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_1913/2026; UPC_CFI_3369/2026
Registry reference	UPC-CFI-0001913/2026
Parties	Valeo Electrification v. SEG Automotive France SAS; SEG Automotive Germany GmbH; SEG Automotive Spain S.A.U.; SEG Automotive Italy S.r.l.; partie non affichée (défendeurs 5 à 8)
Language	French

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 · 1 November 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 22 October 2026 (UPC_CFI_1913/2026 and UPC_CFI_3369/2026, EP 4 128 486), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division rejects Valeo Electrification’s request for a finding that the defendants had accepted the division’s jurisdiction by not filing a preliminary objection, and for the jurisdiction challenge raised in the statement of defence for acts committed in Spain to be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Combining Article 31 UPCA and Article 26 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, she holds, following the Court of Appeal (Nuc v Hurom), that challenging jurisdiction in the statement of defence is the positive act that prevents prorogation, irrespective of Rule 19.7 RoP. As the challenge is not manifestly bound to fail under Rule 361 RoP, it will be examined on the merits; costs are reserved.

Provisions applied

UPC Agreement: Article 31
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I recast): Article 26
Rules of Procedure: Rules 19.7, 23 and 361
Case law cited: Nuc v Hurom (Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_420/2025, 27 March 2026, paras 48 to 57).

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 1 November 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: French from the language of proceedings
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

UPC_CFI_1913/2026 official number
UPC_CFI_3369/2026 official number

Follow these proceedings

Parties

claimantValeo Electrification18 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantSEG Automotive Germany GmbH2 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantSEG Automotive France SASFollow this party
defendantSEG Automotive Spain S.A.UFollow this party
defendantSEG Automotive Italy S.r.l.Follow this party
defendantpartie non affichée (défendeurs 5 à 8)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

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: Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division locale de Paris refuse de juger que les défendeurs ont accepté sa compétence pour les actes commis en Espagne : l’exception d’incompétence soulevée dans le mémoire en défense suffit à faire obstacle à la prorogation tacite, indépendamment de l’absence d’exception préliminaire.
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

EP 4 128 486 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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 4 128 486`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)	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.