Short Summary
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the competence of the Paris Local Division to hear a patent infringement action brought by Valeo against multiple Bosch entities. Bosch had filed preliminary objections arguing that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA—requiring a commercial relationship between defendants and that the action relate to the same alleged infringement—were not met. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that both conditions were satisfied because the Bosch defendants belonged to the same group and were involved in the design, production, and marketing of the allegedly infringing wiper products, and because the products at issue appeared to be substantially the same.
Detailed Summary
On 12 December 2025, Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage filed an action for infringement of European patent EP 4 414 599, relating to an adapter for a wiping system, against six Robert Bosch entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The action concerned alleged acts of infringement in Germany, Belgium, and France relating to several models of windscreen wiper blades marketed under the commercial designations MOPAR (a Stellantis trademark), BYD (for Denza Z9 vehicle models), and AEROTWIN (a Bosch trademark). Five of the Bosch defendants lodged a preliminary objection on 27 January 2026, and Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) filed a second preliminary objection on 6 February 2026, both challenging the competence of the Paris Local Division and the language of the proceedings. They argued that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA for multiple defendants—requiring a commercial relationship between defendants and that the action relate to the same alleged infringement—were not satisfied. The judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division rejected the preliminary objections on 17 February 2026, and a panel upheld that decision on 23 March 2026, granting leave to appeal.
On appeal, Bosch argued that the commercial relationship criterion should be interpreted strictly and that, where there were two separate supply chains for the same products, the anchor defendant could only be the defendant participating in both supply chains. Bosch further contended that the 'same alleged infringement' condition was not limited to infringement of the same patent but required that at least one of the acts of infringement be committed in the territory of the local division's competence. Valeo countered that the commercial relationship existed through the Bosch group's coordinated activities and that the products at issue were substantially identical.
The Court of Appeal, composed of President Klaus Grabinski, Judge-Rapporteur Emmanuel Gougé, and Judge Ingeborg Simonsson, dismissed the appeal. On the commercial relationship criterion, the Court held that belonging to the same group of companies may constitute such a relationship, provided that each defendant's activity relates to the allegedly infringing product or range of products. The relationship may be direct or indirect, through other group companies or third-party intermediaries, and it is not necessary for all defendants to participate in the same supply chain or for the anchor defendant to participate in different supply chains. The Court found that all Bosch defendants, including Bosch France and Bosch China, were involved in at least one stage of the design, development, production, or marketing of the allegedly infringing products, which was sufficiently evidenced by Valeo and not contested by Bosch at the preliminary objection stage.
On the 'same alleged infringement' condition, the Court held that the alleged acts of infringement must relate to the same patent and to the same product or range of products, provided that, on a summary assessment at the preliminary objection stage, the products appear to be substantially the same, irrespective of their commercial designations and without the need to establish that they are marketed through the same supply and distribution channel. The Court noted that Valeo had substantiated the structural and dimensional identity of the MOPAR, BYD, and AEROTWIN products through photographs, while Bosch had failed to demonstrate any material or structural differences that would require a substantially different infringement assessment. Accordingly, both conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA were satisfied, the Paris Local Division's competence was established, and the application to dismiss the infringement action was without merit. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Robert Bosch (multiple entities) vs Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.