Executive Summary
In this preliminary ruling, the Paris Local Division addressed objections raised by various Bosch entities challenging its internal jurisdiction over a patent infringement action brought by Valeo. Bosch argued that because the alleged infringing products did not apply to all defendants, the case should be transferred to another division (Düsseldorf). The court rejected these objections, clarifying that Article 33.1 b/ AJUB only requires the infringement to relate to the same patent among multiple defendants, regardless of product identity across all parties. This ruling clears the path for the merits phase of the infringement claim.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court clarified that Article 33.1 b/ AJUB requires only that the infringement concerns the same patent, not necessarily identical products across all defendants, to justify internal jurisdiction in a case involving multiple defendants. The preliminary objections challenging the competence of the Paris Local Division were therefore dismissed.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris (FR) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE vs ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd et autres sociétés du groupe Bosch is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
SodaStream Industries Ltd.vsAarke AB
In a significant ruling for the carbonation device market, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf found that SodaStream Industries Ltd. successfully proved infringement against Aarke AB regarding their respective carbonator products. The court granted an interim damages award of EUR 250,000 and issued a cease and desist order based on Claim 1 of EP 1 793 917. This decision reinforces the importance of precise claim construction under Art. 69 EPC while providing immediate relief to the patent holder.
Syngenta LimitedvsSumi Agro Limited
This UPC decision addresses a procedural request for confidentiality rather than patent infringement itself. The Court of First Instance granted the defendants' motion to classify specific exhibits (SA-1 and SA-9) as strictly confidential under Rule 262A. This ruling is significant for practitioners, reinforcing the court's commitment to protecting sensitive commercial information during litigation proceedings.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbHvsTandem Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application to change the language of proceedings from German to English for an infringement case involving drug infusion systems. The Court ruled that despite one defendant being based in Germany, the interests and positions of the defendants collectively justified switching the language to English, which was the patent's granting language. This ruling reinforces the principle that when balancing linguistic interests, the position of the defendants holds decisive weight.
NEC CorporationvsTCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o
In this preliminary procedural order, the UPC Court addressed an issue of service of process in a patent infringement case brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities. The core dispute revolved around proving that Defendant 2 (TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.) had properly received the claim filed under EP 3 057 321. The court ultimately accepted the defendant's own statement as valid proof of service, thereby clearing a procedural hurdle and allowing the main infringement action to proceed.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.PvsLAMA FRANCE
This procedural order in the HPDC v LAMA infringement case addressed disputes over the scope of evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court strictly applied the Rules of Procedure, limiting what could be debated based on previous submissions. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to the structured phases of written proceedings within the UPC.
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.