VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 18 July 2026)

Date	18 July 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Paris (FR) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_1963/2025
Registry reference	UPC-CFI-0001963/2025
Parties	VALEO 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

17 February 2026 : VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 17 February 2026) UPC_CFI_1963/2025
23 March 2026 : Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch d.o.o. Beograd (CFI, 23 March 2026) UPC_CFI_1963/2025
15 July 2026 : VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 15 July 2026) UPC-CFI-0001963/2025

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 18 July 2026, issued in infringement action UPC_CFI_1963/2025 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_1247/2026, the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division refused to let the Bosch group companies’ time limit for their rejoinder run only from receipt of an unredacted version of Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage’s submission (EP 4 144 599). The order makes clear that difficulty in accessing a confidential document does not justify extending a time limit where the party has not acted diligently.

Question

Do the defendants’ time limits under Rule 29(d) run from the filing on 15 June 2026 of Valeo’s submission in redacted and unredacted versions, or only from actual receipt of the unredacted version?

Decision

Rule 9.3(a) allows a time limit to be extended on a reasoned request, even retrospectively, but the request was refused. Filing the submission only in the infringement file made no difference, since both proceedings are linked in the CMS and Bosch had itself filed a combined submission. The redacted passages reproduced Bosch’s own exhibits BP6, BP7 and BP8, covered by a confidentiality order of 30 April 2026, whose content Bosch knew. The unredacted version had been filed at the same time as the redacted one, and Bosch waited a month before seeking access from opposing counsel or the Registry. Its difficulty arose from its own lack of diligence, so the time limits run from 15 June 2026.

Key points for practice

A party that does not receive the unredacted version of the other side’s submission should promptly contact opposing counsel or the Registry. Otherwise time runs from filing in the CMS.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 9.3(a), 29(d) and 333

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

VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 2026-02-17), 17 February 2026
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO (CFI, 2026-03-23), 23 March 2026
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 2026-07-15), 15 July 2026

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

claimantVALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE9 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd6 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.Snormalised name: ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS11 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantROBERT BOSCH GmbH12 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantROBERT BOSCH S.A.11 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTI3 decisions in the corpus 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

17 February 2026 VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 17 February 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1963/2025
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.
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…
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.
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.
18 July 2026 VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 18 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1963/2025

What the record states

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

Patents mentioned

EP 4 144 599 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 15 July 2026) cited in this record
Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch d.o.o. Beograd (CFI, 23 March 2026) cited in this record
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 17 February 2026) cited in this record

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 4 144 599`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 5 other decision(s): 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 · VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (CFI, 17 February	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.

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.