Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch d.o.o. Beograd (CFI, 23 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 23 March 2026 (UPC_CFI_1963/2025, EP 4 144 599), the panel of the Paris Local Division refused the request by Robert Bosch d.o.o. Beograd and five other Bosch group companies to review the judge-rapporteur’s order of 17 February 2026, which had rejected their preliminary objection on internal competence in Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage’s infringement action. The panel took a broad reading of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA: the commercial relationship is assessed among defendants belonging to the same group, and the « same alleged infringement » means infringement of the claims of the same patent. Leave to appeal was granted, as the question is of legal interest. The order makes it easier to sue a corporate group before a local division.

Question

Where several defendants are sued before the local division of the State where one of them is domiciled, must each have a commercial relationship with the anchor defendant, and must the accused products be identical? Does failure to rectify within the Rule 19.5 time limit lead to dismissal of the action?

Decision

The panel assessed the commercial relationship flexibly, to avoid parallel proceedings and conflicting decisions: it exists in particular where the defendants belong to the same group and carry out related activities concerning the same products or product range. Requiring each defendant to have a privileged link with the anchor defendant would channel all disputes to the division of the parent company’s seat, which neither the wording nor the aims of the UPC require. The same alleged infringement concerns the identity of the rights infringed, not of the products, so differing designations or shapes do not matter. The request to dismiss the action was moot, and Rule 19.5, which lets the claimant choose between rectifying and commenting on the objection, carries no such sanction.

Key points for practice

• Article 33(1)(b) UPCA allows group companies to be sued together before a local division where their products, even if different, are alleged to infringe the same claims.
• A claimant who answers a preliminary objection with comments, without rectifying its statement of claim, does not risk dismissal of its action under Rule 19.5.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25, 26 and 33(1)(b)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.5, 220.2 and 333

Related decisions

• Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch d.o.o. Beograd, 17 February 2026, judge-rapporteur’s order rejecting the preliminary objection, upheld by the panel.

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.