Automotive — European UPC Patent Cases
4 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 4 total
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court, Division Locale de Paris, concerning a patent infringement action brought by Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage against six entities of the Bosch group regarding European Patent EP4144599. The order addresses Valeo's requests to unconditionally limit its infringement claims by excluding certain AeroTwin APX products, withdrawing claims against Belgian and German territories, and withdrawing all claims against Defendant 5 (Bosch Productie). The court granted all of Valeo's requests, finding no legitimate interest for Bosch Productie to oppose the withdrawal, and declined to rule on costs at this stage.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal by several Robert Bosch entities against an order of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed their preliminary objections to jurisdiction. The court held that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA—commercial connection between defendants and the same alleged infringement—were satisfied, as membership in the same corporate group could establish a commercial connection and the alleged infringing wiper blade products (sold under MOPAR, BYD, and AEROTWIN brands) appeared substantially the same in structure and dimensions.
Valeo Systèmes d'essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch SA, Robert Bosch Produktie SA, Robert Bosch DOO Beograd, Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) CO., LTD.
ORDONNANCE
Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH, SEG Automotive Spain, S.A.U., SEG Automotive France SAS, Ferdinando Sorrentino, Gustavo Henrique Baldussi Ferreira, Claudio Ishamu Nakao, Frank Ahlborn
This order concerns an application to intervene filed by KSR International Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Automotive Technical Advisory Service GmbH in patent infringement proceedings brought by Valeo Electrification against SEG Automotive entities and individual officers concerning EP 3 157 142. The Interveners had collaborated with Defendant 1 in 2018–2019 on developing an inverter for the accused 'BRM 2.8' 48V e-machines and sought to intervene in support of the Defendants to avoid potential future recourse claims. The Düsseldorf Local Division admitted the Interveners, finding they had a direct and present legal interest, and aligned their deadline for filing a statement in intervention with the Defendants' deadline for filing their statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation, set at 16 July 2026.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.