Short Summary
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an appeal by Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage against an order of the Central Division (Paris section). The Paris CD had granted a preliminary objection filed by four Bosch entities, transferring the infringement action concerning EP 2671766 to the Düsseldorf local division and setting English as the language of proceedings. The Court of Appeal's judge-rapporteur raised the question of the admissibility of Valeo's appeal and invited the Bosch respondents to submit comments within seven days on this issue.
Detailed Summary
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage (the Appellant) brought an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2671766 against several Robert Bosch entities (the Respondents) before the Central Division (Paris section) of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court. Four of the Bosch respondents — Robert Bosch France SAS, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch SA, and Robert Bosch Produktie SA — filed a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP challenging the jurisdiction of the Paris CD and the language of the proceedings. By an order dated 23 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_809/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris CD granted the preliminary objection together with Valeo's subsidiary request, ordered the transfer of the infringement action to the Düsseldorf local division, and ruled that the language of proceedings would be English.
On 7 January 2026, Valeo filed a notice of appeal against that contested order under Rule 220.2 RoP (Appeal No. UPC_CoA_0000004/2026). Valeo asks the Court of Appeal to find that the Paris CD is competent to hear the infringement action, to order the case transferred back to the Paris CD, and to rule that the language of proceedings shall be French. Following observations from the registry during the formal examination of the notice of appeal under Rule 229 RoP, Valeo remedied the formal deficiencies and filed supplementary observations on the legal basis of its appeal. The registry entered the appeal on the register under Rule 230 RoP on 20 January 2026.
In this procedural order of 21 January 2026, Judge-Rapporteur Emmanuel Gougé noted that, during the preliminary examination of the statement of grounds of appeal, he had reviewed Valeo's written observations of 19 January 2026 concerning the applicable appeal regime under Article 73 of the UPCA Agreement and Rules 21 and 220 RoP. The judge-rapporteur observed that the appeal route chosen by Valeo and its observations of 19 January 2026 raise the question of the admissibility (recevabilité) of the appeal. In the interest of efficient organization of the proceedings, the judge-rapporteur considered it appropriate to examine the admissibility of the appeal and to hear the Respondents on this point before examining the merits.
Accordingly, the Court ordered that the Bosch Respondents be invited to submit their comments, within seven days of the order, on the question of the admissibility of the appeal and on Valeo's written observations of 19 January 2026. The Court further ordered that the time limit under Rule 235 RoP for the filing of the Respondents' defence be suspended pending the decision on admissibility, in which decision the timetable for the next steps of the proceedings will be set, if applicable.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage vs Robert Bosch France SAS and Others is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
FUJIFILM CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 511 174. The court ordered the separation of proceedings regarding the UK national part of the patent-in-suit because the ECJ decision in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte), which addressed a fundamental question of European law on international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation, was only delivered after the oral hearing. The court found it inappropriate to delay the entire decision or hold a second oral hearing, and instead separated the UK-related claims to be dealt with in separate proceedings.
Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KGvsVEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH
This case before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent No. 3 106 035, held by Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG, relating to a receiving basket for a lifting device used in food processing machines. Handtmann sued competitor VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH for infringement regarding its vacuum filling machines 'DPnx' and 'HPnx', while VEMAG counterclaimed for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The court rendered a mixed decision, partially upholding the patent in amended form (auxiliary request 2) and partially finding it invalid, with costs split 20% to the claimant and 80% to the defendant.
Ona Patents SLvsGoogle Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The court decided, with the consent of both parties, to hear the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was based on considerations of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided together by the same panel for a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.vsJingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a security for costs order. The Munich Local Division's judge-rapporteur had ordered Chint to provide security for costs in favor of JingAo in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 787 541. The Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that a security for costs order issued by a judge-rapporteur is a case management order under R. 333.1 RoP that may only be appealed after review by the panel of the Court of First Instance.
Promosome LLCvsBioNTech SE and Others
Promosome LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court against BioNTech and Pfizer entities concerning European patent EP 2 401 365, targeting several Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over the Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 variant (embodiment 2b), arguing it was produced and sold only before 1 June 2023, making jurisdiction contrary to the non-retroactivity principle under Art. 28 VCLT. The judge-rapporteur held that the preliminary objection was admissible but deferred its final determination to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, pending a related Court of Appeal decision.
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.