Valeo Electrification v. Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL

This case concerns an application for rectification under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court, filed by the Defendants (Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL) against an Order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division on 31 October 2024 in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 3 320 604 B1. The Applicant in the underlying proceedings was Valeo Electrification.

The original Order of 31 October 2024 required the Defendants to refrain from offering, placing on the market, using, importing, or storing certain electric motor generators and replacement parts (challenged embodiment I), as well as the 7HDT400 gearbox assembly (challenged embodiment II), in Germany and France. The Court permitted an exemption allowing the Defendants to fulfil their current delivery obligations towards BMW for five specified models: X1, X2, 1 Series, 2 Series Active Tourer, and Mini Countryman.

The Defendants filed their rectification application on 6 November 2024, seeking three amendments:

1. Addition of '2 Series Gran Coupé' to the list of exempted BMW models, arguing this was an obvious slip since the Court's clear intention was to ensure full compliance with their BMW delivery obligations.

2. Clarification that the vindication action filed by Defendant 1 before the Paris Court of First Instance on 13 September 2024 covered not only the French part but also the German part of the patent in suit.

3. Amendment of a statement in the Order asserting that the parties did not agree on an obligation to update a list, which the Defendants argued contradicted the wording of margin No. 7.3 of the 2019 Nomination Letter.

The Applicant requested rejection of the rectification application.

The Court, applying R. 353 RoP, held that the application was admissible (filed within the one-month deadline) but unfounded. The Court explained that 'obvious slips' are incorrect or incomplete statements of what the Court actually intended, where the declaration of intention deviates from the actual intention at the time of decision-making.

On the first point (BMW models), the Court found that '2 Series Gran Coupé' was not introduced into the proceedings before the rectification application. It was not part of the written submissions or oral hearing, so it could not have been considered in the Order. The Applicant had explicitly referred to five specific BMW models, and the Defendants' own references to '2 Series' were understood to mean '2 Series Active Tourer'. The Court noted it was not obliged to search exhibits for information not expressly referenced in briefs.

On the second point (vindication action), the Court found no 'slip' existed. R. 353 RoP addresses clerical mistakes, calculation errors, and obvious slips, but not omissions. The Court's statement about the French part of the patent was not wrong in itself, and the Court did not need to address other parts as it was not relevant to the reasoning.

On the third point (obligation to update the list), the Court found no obvious slip, holding that the Defendants were merely substituting their own interpretation of the Nomination Letter for the Court's assessment, which is not a valid basis for rectification.

Additionally, the Court declined to consider written submissions filed by both parties on 17 and 18 November 2024, as they were submitted outside any time limit set by the Court and without opportunity to be heard, pursuant to R. 9.2 RoP.

The final order dismissed the application for rectification in its entirety.