Key takeaways
A supplier’s potential liability from a defendant’s recourse claim constitutes a “direct and present interest” to intervene in an infringement action under R. 313.1 RoP
The defendant’s formal notice reserving rights to claim for a “defect in title” of supplied components established the tangible risk needed for the intervener’s legal interest.
This interest was reinforced by the defendant’s own submission, which stated a potential interest in having the intervener bound by the judgment to facilitate future claims.
To ensure efficiency and prevent delay, the court can align an intervener’s deadline for its statement with the defendant’s existing deadline, pursuant to R. 315.1(b) RoP
This alignment directly addressed the claimant’s concern that the intervener may have intentionally delayed its application to obtain a separate, later deadline (a “second time regime”).
Division
Local Division Düsseldorf
UPC number
UPC_CFI_1035/2026
Type of proceedings
Main infringement action (Order on application to intervene)
Parties
Claimant: Valeo Electrification
Defendants: SEG Automotive Germany GmbH, SEG Automotive Spain, S.A.U., SEG Automotive France SAS, and several of their directors and board members.
Interveners: KSR International Inc. and Automotive Technical Advisory Service GmbH.
Patent(s)
EP 3 157 142
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 313 RoP
R. 313.1 RoP
R. 314 RoP
R. 315.1(a) RoP
R. 315.1(b) RoP
R. 315.2 RoP
R. 315.4 RoP
