Valeo Systemes D’essuyage v ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE (CoA, 11 February 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Court of Appeal declares admissible the appeal lodged by Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage under Rule 220.2 RoP against the order of the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division of 23 December 2025. That order, allowing a preliminary objection by Bosch group companies, had declined jurisdiction, referred the infringement action on EP 2671766 to the Düsseldorf Local Division and set English as the language of the proceedings. The order clarifies the route of appeal against an order allowing a preliminary objection without ending the proceedings, and refuses to stay the first instance proceedings.

Question

Does an order allowing a preliminary objection and referring the action to another division, without ending the proceedings for any party, fall under Rule 220.1(a) or Rule 220.2 RoP? Does the risk of having to translate the statement of defence justify a stay?

Decision

Such an order falls under neither sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP, the second sentence applies by analogy (paragraph 20). Since the order concerns a question of internal competence within the Court, it could be appealed under Rule 220.2 RoP (paragraphs 21 and 22). The objection based on payment of the reduced appeal fee is rejected (paragraph 23) and the appellant is adversely affected by the order (paragraph 24). As an appeal has in principle no suspensive effect, the risk of translating the statement of defence if the case returns to Paris, a mere possibility, is not an exceptional circumstance (paragraphs 27 to 31). The respondents must file their statement of response within 15 days (paragraph 32).

Key points for practice

• Referral of an action to another division on a preliminary objection is appealed under Rule 220.2 RoP, not Rule 220.1(a) RoP (paragraphs 20 to 22).
• The possible cost of translation should the appeal succeed does not justify a stay of the first instance proceedings (paragraphs 29 to 31).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 73(1) and (2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 21, 220, 229, 235 and recital 4 of the Preamble

Case law cited

Mala v Nokia, Court of Appeal, 21 June 2024, UPC_CoA_227/2024.

Related decisions

• Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch, 23 December 2025, the Paris Central Division order under appeal.
• Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch France, 21 January 2026, judge-rapporteur’s order providing for admissibility to be decided first.

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.