(2) ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, 32 avenue Michelet, 93400, Sain, (3) ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, 1 Robert-Bosch-Platz, 70839 Gerlingen v. VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE, 34, rue Saint André 93012 Bobigny

1

ORDER

of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court

on the appeal against an order on a Preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP)

issued on 22 June 2026

HEADNOTES

(i)

Within the meaning of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA, the commercial relationship criterion requires the existence of

a relationship between the defendants concerning commercial activities relating to the allegedly infringing

product or range of products, such as research and development, manufacture, sale and distribution of that

product or range of products.

(ii) Belonging to the same group of companies may constitute such a commercial relationship, provided that it

can be established that the activity of each defendant belonging to that same group relates to the allegedly

infringing product or range of products.

(iii) The commercial relationship may be direct or indirect. It may exist through other companies within the same

group of companies or even through third-party intermediaries, provided that all the defendants pursue the

same objective and that the activities in question relate to the allegedly infringing product or range of

products. In this respect, it is not necessary, in order to establish the existence of a commercial relationship,

for the defendants to participate in the same supply chain or for the anchor defendant to participate in

different supply chains.

(iv) Under the second condition set out in the second sentence of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA, the action must relate

to the same alleged infringement.

(v) In order to satisfy this condition, the alleged acts of infringement must relate to the same patent and to the

same product or same range of products provided that, on the basis of a summary assessment when

examining a Preliminary objection, the products at issue appear to be substantially the same, irrespective of

their commercial designations and without the need to establish that these products are marketed through

the same supply and distribution channel.

KEYWORDS

Preliminary objection; competence of the divisions of the Court of First Instance.

Appeal no:

UPC-CoA-50/2026

2

APPELLANTS, DEFENDANTS IN THE INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, AND APPLICANTS IN THE

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

(1) ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, 90E/IV Omladinskih brigada, 11070, Beograd, Serbia

(2) ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, 32 avenue Michelet, 93400, Saint-Ouen-Sur-Seine, France

(3) ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, 1 Robert-Bosch-Platz, 70839 Gerlingen, Germany

(4) ROBERT BOSCH S.A., 1 rue Henri-Joseph Genesse, 1070 Anderlecht, Belgium

(5) ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, Hamelendreef 80, 3300 Tienen, Belgium

(6) BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD., 26 Lixiangzhong Road, Economic and

Technological Development Zone, Changsha County, Hunan Province, 410100 Changsha, China

hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘the Appellants’ or ‘BOSCH’

Represented by Mr Johannes Heeselberger, representative before the UPC, Bardehle Pagenberg, Munich,

Germany

RESPONDENT AND CLAIMANT IN THE INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE, 34, rue Saint André 93012 Bobigny Cedex, France

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Respondent’ or ‘VALEO’

represented by Mr Lionel Martin, representative before the UPC, and other representatives of Cabinet

August Debouzy, Paris, France

PATENT AT ISSUE

EP 4 144 599

COMPOSITION OF THE PANEL

Panel 1e, composed as follows:

Klaus Grabinski, President of the Court of Appeal,

Emmanuel Gougé, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur,

Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge.

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

French

IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

□ Order of the Local Division of Paris of 23 March 2026, UPC_CFI_1963/2025

DATE OF THE ORAL HEARING

26 May 2026

3

OF THE FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Proceedings before the Court of First Instance

1. On 12 December 2025, VALEO filed an action for in