Key takeaways
The “same alleged infringement” condition under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA requires infringement of the same patent, not that all defendants infringe with identical products
This flexible interpretation avoids procedural fragmentation. The question of which defendant is involved with which specific product is a matter for the merits, not a preliminary jurisdictional issue.
The “commercial relationship” condition under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA requires a link between all defendants, not that the anchor defendant is linked to all others
Belonging to the same international group and participating in related activities like manufacturing and marketing the disputed products is sufficient to establish the required “commercial relationship”.
Ancillary requests in the event of a referral to the Düsseldorf LD, such as for a language change, are irrlevant since the preliminary objections have been rejected and the Paris LD has jurisdiction
Division
LD Paris
UPC number
UPC_CFI_1963/2025
Type of proceedings
infringement action
Parties
Claimant (defendant in preliminary objection): VALEO WIPER SYSTEMS, France
Defendant (applicants in preliminary objection): ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd, Serbia; ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., France; ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, Germany; ROBERT BOSCH S.A., Belgium; ROBERT BOSCH PRODUCTION S.A., Belgium; BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD., China
Patent
EP 4 144 599
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 19 RoP, Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA
