Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued on July 15, 2026, by Judge-Rapporteur Carine Gillet of the Unified Patent Court, Division Locale de Paris, in cases UPC_CFI_1963/2025 and UPC_CFI_1247/2026.
Background: On December 12, 2025, Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage (the claimant and patent proprietor of EP4144599) initiated a patent infringement action against six entities of the Bosch group, alleging infringement in France, Belgium, and Germany. On April 13, 2026, the Bosch defendants filed their defense and counterclaim for revocation of the patent, invoking prior private use in France, Belgium, and Germany.
Valeo's Request (June 15, 2026): Valeo sought authorization under Rule 263 RoP to unconditionally limit its claims by: (1) withdrawing claims targeting products APX16, APX17, APX19, APX20, APX24, APX26, and APX28; (2) withdrawing claims targeting Belgian territory; and (3) withdrawing claims against Defendants 1-5 for acts committed in Germany. Under Rule 265 RoP, Valeo also sought to withdraw all claims against Defendant 5 (Bosch Productie).
Bosch's Opposition: Bosch did not oppose the withdrawal of claims regarding the AeroTwin APX products but opposed the withdrawal of claims against Defendant 5 (Bosch Productie), arguing that all defendants had invested resources in their defense and had an interest in obtaining a decision on the merits to protect against future actions. Bosch also argued that the territorial modifications constituted a change of claim under R.263.1 RoP or a withdrawal under R.265 RoP rather than a limitation under R.263.3 RoP, and that the limitation was designed to circumvent the prior use defense, forcing the court to apply three different national laws. Bosch further argued that the modifications had no effect on their counterclaims for revocation and on the confidentiality obligation set in the order of April 30, 2026 (rectified May 5, 2026).
Valeo's Response: Valeo argued that the territorial limitation was indeed an unconditional limitation under R.263.3 RoP, not a modification or change of claim. Valeo contended that it is well established that a party may bring claims on a more limited territory than the Contracting States and that there is no unified regime or cross-border effects attached to prior use within the UPC system, requiring reference to national law on a territory-by-territory basis. Regarding Bosch Productie, Valeo argued that the withdrawal demonstrated its desire to simplify the dispute by focusing on prior use under French law alone, and that Bosch Productie had no legitimate interest in opposing the withdrawal since prior use was invoked only as a defense, not as a counterclaim.
Court's Reasoning and Decision: The court found that the defendants did not oppose the withdrawal of claims regarding the APX products. Regarding Bosch Productie, the court found no legitimate interest to continue proceedings against it, noting that prior use arguments were invoked only as a defense and not as a counterclaim giving rise to procedural rights. The court cited the principle from the Munich Local Division (October 24, 2024, UPC_CFI_98/2024) that the mere consideration of defense costs does not constitute a legitimate reason to oppose a withdrawal request. The court also noted that the decision was without effect on the confidentiality obligation.
Final Order: The court (1) authorized Valeo to unconditionally limit its infringement claims against Defendants 1-4 by excluding the APX products; (2) authorized the exclusion of Belgian and German territories from the territorial scope; (3) authorized the withdrawal of all claims against Defendant 5 (Bosch Productie); (4) stated that the remaining infringement claims against Defendants 1-4 target products MOPAR, BYD, and A010J and are limited to French territory; (5) noted that the infringement claim against Defendant 6 (Bosch Changsha) is limited to French and German territories; (6) reminded that the order has no impact on the confidentiality obligation; and (7) declined to rule on costs and procedural fees at this stage, as the proceedings continue against the remaining defendants.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court allowed VALEO to limit its demands, excluding certain products and territories, but rejected the request to withdraw the action against one of the defendants. The court also ruled that the modification of the demands did not affect the counterclaims filed by the defendants.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE vs 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. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
AIM Sport Development AGvsSupponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the interpretation of Article 83(4) UPCA regarding the withdrawal of an opt-out from the UPC's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'Unless an action has already been brought before a national court' refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime, not to proceedings commenced prior to it. Consequently, the Court set aside the Court of First Instance's orders dismissing AIM's infringement action and provisional measures request, and referred the actions back to the Court of First Instance for further adjudication.
GXD-Bio CorporationvsMyriad International GmbH and Others
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns a request by the defendants for the claimant to provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP and Article 69(4) UPCA in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 346 403. The defendants argued that the claimant, a Korean IP monetization company incorporated in 2024 with limited assets and a low credit rating, posed a risk that any cost order would be unrecoverable. The claimant did not contest the request and agreed to provide security of EUR 112,000, and the court ordered the security to be provided by deposit or bank guarantee by 15 January 2025.
Aarke ABvsSodaStream Industries Ltd.
Unified Patent Court decision.
DexCom, Inc.vsAbbott Laboratories et al.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 026 488, in which DexCom, Inc. brought a patent infringement action against multiple Abbott entities who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, primarily for reasons of procedural efficiency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
Insulet CorporationvsEOFLOW Co. Ltd (Request for Intervention by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.)
This procedural order from the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. to intervene in provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation against EOFLOW Co. Ltd regarding European Patent EP4201327. The Court first overruled Insulet's preliminary objection that the intervention application was inadmissible because it was filed in hard copy rather than electronically, finding that the CMS lacked a workflow for third-party interventions. On the merits, the Court rejected the intervention request, holding that intervention in interim injunction proceedings is only available in exceptional cases and that Menarini could adequately protect its interests in parallel proceedings before the Local Division Milan.
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.