VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE (CoA, 22 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Court of Appeal sets aside two orders of the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division, which had declined jurisdiction and referred to the Düsseldorf Local Division the infringement action brought by Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage against six Bosch group companies, including a Serbian and a Chinese company. It holds that the Central Division’s jurisdiction over a defendant domiciled outside the Contracting Member States is not an exception to that of the local and regional divisions, and that it extends to co-defendants established in those States where the anchor defendant conditions are met. For practitioners, the order widens the choice of forum in actions against groups with an entity outside the EU.

Facts and procedure

Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage sued Robert Bosch France SAS, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A., Robert Bosch Produktie S.A., Robert Bosch d.o.o. Beograd and Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd. before the Paris Central Division for infringement of EP 2 671 766 in Germany, Belgium and France, relying on the third subparagraph of Art. 33(1) UPCA (paragraph 1). On a preliminary objection by the four European companies, the judge-rapporteur declined jurisdiction on 23 December 2025, referred the case to Düsseldorf and set English as the language (paragraphs 2 and 3), he ruled likewise on 21 January 2026 on the objection of the Serbian and Chinese companies (paragraphs 4 and 5).

Valeo appealed both orders (UPC_CoA_4/2026 and UPC_CoA_13/2026), decided by a single common order. Appeal 4/2026, brought under Rule 220.2 RoP, had already been held admissible on 11 February 2026, appeal 13/2026 is admissible for the same reasons (paragraphs 12 and 13).

The applicable law

Art. 33(1) UPCA allocates the actions listed in Art. 32(1)(a), (c), (f) and (g) among the divisions: the division of the place of infringement (point (a)), the division of the defendant’s domicile, subject, where there are several defendants, to a commercial relationship and the same alleged infringement (point (b)), and the Central Division where the defendant is domiciled outside the Contracting Member States (third subparagraph) or in a State with no local or regional division (fourth subparagraph). Competence between divisions is an internal UPC matter, interpreted autonomously, and the place of infringement and domicile criteria are alternatives with no hierarchy (paragraphs 15 to 17, citing Barco v Yealink).

Question

Does the Central Division have jurisdiction where only some co-defendants are domiciled outside the Contracting Member States, the others being established in a State that has a local division?

Decision

The Court of Appeal answers yes. The third subparagraph is not an exception to the jurisdiction of the local and regional divisions: neither its wording nor its place in Art. 33 supports that reading (paragraph 21). Where defendants are domiciled outside the Contracting Member States, the Central Division takes the place of the local or regional division that would have jurisdiction under point (b), and that mechanism applies to the non-member defendant and to the other co-defendants alike (paragraphs 29 to 31). Forcing the claimant to sue before the division of a European co-defendant’s domicile would defeat the purpose of the provision, which is to avoid parallel proceedings and conflicting decisions (paragraphs 28 and 30). The proximity principle relied on by Bosch does not override that legislative choice (paragraph 32).

At the preliminary objection stage a summary review is enough: Bosch disputed neither the commercial relationship between the defendants nor the Serbian company’s role in manufacturing and importing the products (paragraph 36), and the action concerns the same alleged infringement since it is based on a single patent, even though not every defendant is sued for every product or in every State (paragraphs 38 to 41). The language remains French, the language in which the action was lodged. The request to dispense with translations is a matter for the Central Division, and costs are not decided at this stage (paragraphs 43 to 45, citing Roku v Dolby).

Key points for practice

• The presence among the co-defendants of a company domiciled outside the Contracting Member States is enough to open the Central Division for all related defendants (paragraphs 29 to 31).
• The commercial relationship and the same alleged infringement are assessed summarily at the preliminary objection stage, without prejudging the merits (paragraphs 36 and 38).
• An order on a preliminary objection binds only the parties who raised it. It does not bind the other co-defendants (paragraph 14).
• Practical point: a precise account of each group company’s role in manufacture and distribution shapes the choice of forum from the statement of claim onwards.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 31, 32(1) and 33(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 20 and 220.2

Other instruments

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, Lugano Convention

Case law cited

Barco v Yealink, Court of Appeal, 28 November 2025, Roku v Dolby, Court of Appeal, 6 October 2025

Related decisions

• Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch, 23 December 2025, first order set aside.
• Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch France, 11 February 2026, order on the admissibility of the appeal.
• Robert Bosch doo Beograd v Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage, 22 June 2026, order of the same day on the jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division in parallel proceedings.

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.