Opens in a new tab

VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 17 February 2026)

Date17 February 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_1963/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_1963/2025
PartiesVALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v. ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTI…

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 17 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_1963/2025, EP 4 144 599), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division dismissed the preliminary objections of six Bosch group companies, sued for infringement by Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage, which challenged the Division’s internal competence under Article 33(1)(b) UPCA. The order takes a broad view of multiple defendants: membership of the same group and alleged infringement of the same patent suffice, without requiring identical products for each.

Question

Does a local division seised on the basis of one defendant’s domicile in France (Robert Bosch France) have competence over the other group companies where not all of them are accused in respect of the same products?

Decision

Article 33(1)(b) refers to the defendants as a whole, not only the anchor defendant. A commercial relationship exists where the defendants belong to the same international group and each takes part in manufacturing or selling the accused products, all of which are said to use the « Aquablade » technology. The « same alleged infringement » means infringement of the same patent: the provision requires neither strictly identical products nor the same distribution channels or countries, and each defendant’s involvement is a matter for the merits. The ancillary requests (change of language, translation, dismissal of the action) are moot, Rule 361 not being concerned with internal competence. The deadline for the Statement of Defence was set at 13 April 2026, leave to appeal was refused as the question allows no divergent interpretation, and costs were reserved for the merits.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Arts 31, 32(1)(a) and 33(1)(b)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 19, 20.1, 21.1, 220.2 and 361
Case law cited
Arm v IC Pillar, Paris Local Division, 11 April 2024, Paris Central Division, 12 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_164/2024)

Related decisions

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

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

  • UPC_CFI_1963/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 17 February 2026 VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 17 February 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1963/2025
  2. 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…

  3. 15 May 2026 Robert Bosch Doo Beograd v Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage (CoA, 15 May 2026) Appeal RoP220.2 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision

    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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
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.
Appeal
An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 4 144 599Mentioned 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 · Robert Bosch Doo Beograd v Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage (CoA, 15 May 2026 · Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch d.o.o. Beograd (CFI, 23 March		not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
EP 2 671 766Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE (CoA, 22 June 2026) · VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE (CoA, 3 April 2026) · Valeo Systemes D’essuyage v ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE (CoA, 11 February 2026 · Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch Doo Beograd (CFI, 23 December		not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.