Valeo Electrification v SEG Automotive Germany (CFI, 26 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 26 June 2026, the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division admits KSR International Inc. and its subsidiary Automotive Technical Advisory Service GmbH as interveners in support of the defendants in Valeo Electrification’s infringement action on EP 3 157 142 against SEG Automotive Germany GmbH and six other defendants (UPC_CFI_1035/2026). The order holds that a supplier exposed to a recourse claim for a defect in title has a direct and present interest in intervening, and aligns its deadline with that for the statement of defence.

Question

Does the supplier of a component of the contested product, notified by the defendant of a possible defect in title with a reservation of rights, have the interest required by Rule 313.1 RoP, and by when must it file its statement in intervention?

Decision

The application meets the requirements of Rule 313 RoP (paragraphs 11 to 14). Following Court of Appeal case law, the judge-rapporteur describes a legal interest as a direct and present interest in the order sought by the supported party (paragraph 15). The interveners worked with SEG Automotive Germany GmbH on developing an inverter for the BRM 2.8 machines in issue, and it notified them of a possible defect in title affecting those components. Facing a recourse claim if the defendants lose, they have a direct and present interest in the dismissal of the action and the revocation of the patent (paragraphs 3, 4 and 16). Valeo Electrification did not object to the intervention but was concerned that the interveners might obtain a longer deadline than the defendants (paragraphs 9 and 10): under Rule 315.1(b) RoP, the deadline for the statement in intervention is aligned with that for the statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation, namely 16 July 2026 (paragraphs 18 and 19).

Key points for practice

• The risk of a recourse claim, evidenced by a reservation of rights notified by the defendant, is enough to show a supplier’s direct and present interest in intervening (paragraphs 15 and 16).
• Intervention does not open a separate timetable: the intervener’s deadline may be tied to that for the statement of defence (paragraphs 18 and 19).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 313, 314 and 315

Case law cited

Ocado v Autostore, Court of Appeal, 10 January 2024, Mediatek v Daedalus, Court of Appeal, 8 January 2025, on the direct and present interest required to intervene.

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.