VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 15 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 15 July 2026 (proceedings UPC_CFI_1963/2025 and UPC_CFI_1247/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division allowed VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE, over the Bosch companies’ objections, to limit its infringement action on EP 4 144 599 (excluding seven APX products, Belgium for all defendants and Germany for defendants 1 to 4) and to withdraw its claims against Robert Bosch Produktie S.A. Costs were not decided at this stage. The order draws the line between limitation (Rule 263) and withdrawal (Rule 265) and clarifies the legitimate interest needed to oppose a partial withdrawal.

Question

Is a territorial limitation of the action an amendment of the claim or a withdrawal, and did the defendants show a legitimate interest in opposing the withdrawal against one of them?

Decision

The unopposed exclusion of the APX products was granted as an unconditional limitation (Rule 263.3). The territorial limitations are not withdrawals, since other claims remain. Being unconditional, they were granted without any assessment under Rule 263.2. They do not recast the claims or circumvent the prior use defence, which is assessed country by country under the national law relied on. A withdrawal against a single defendant falls under Rule 265.1, and no legitimate interest was shown: the counterclaim for revocation, with erga omnes effect, is unaffected, the Belgian prior use becomes irrelevant and was raised only as a defence, and defence costs already incurred are not enough. Costs were deferred, as the proceedings continue against the other defendants. The confidentiality obligation under the order of 30 April 2026, as rectified on 5 May 2026, remains in force.

Key points for practice

• Narrowing the territory covered by an infringement action is an unconditional limitation, granted without review of delay or prejudice to the defence.
• Defence costs already incurred do not amount to a legitimate interest in opposing a withdrawal against one defendant, particularly where the counterclaim for revocation continues.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150, 262, 262A, 263, 265 and 333

Case law cited

Network System Technologies, Munich Local Division, 13 August 2024, Corning v Hisense Gorenje, Mannheim Local Division, 18 February 2026, Munich Local Division, 24 October 2024, UPC_CFI_98/2024

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.