Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » LD Paris, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_2070/2025

LD Paris, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_2070/2025

4 min Reading time

Key takeaways

Based on Art. 4, 7(2), and 8(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the Court found it was not “appropriate” under Art. 71b(2) to extend jurisdiction, as the UK defendant’s acts were limited to the UK territory.

Under Art. 8(1) and 71b(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the Court found it “appropriate and expedient” to hear claims together to avoid irreconcilable judgments, as they involved the same products, patent, and companies within the same group.

The decision to defer was characterized as neither allowing nor rejecting the objection, making it appealable under R. 220.2 RoP, following the Valeo v. Bosch precedent (UPC_CoA_4/2026).

Under R. 20.1 and R. 264 RoP, the court has discretion to decide whether to hold a hearing or rely on written submissions to ensure parties are heard.

The request under Art. 267 TFEU was also deemed unnecessary where the court had already found it lacked jurisdiction over another defendant, rendering a referral on that point moot.

Division

LD Paris

UPC number

UPC_CFI_2070/2025

Type of proceedings

Infringment Proceedings

Parties

Claimant: BMS Innovations, LLC

Defendants: BYD Company Ltd
BYD Auto Co., Ltd
BYD Europe B.V.
BYD France SAS
BYD Automotive GmbH
BYD Mobility GmbH
BYD (U.K.) Co., Ltd.

Patent(s)

EP 2 937 706

Jurisdictions

UPC

Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 31 UPCA,

Art. 267 TFEU,

R. 19 RoP, R. 20.1 RoP, R. 21.1 RoP, R. 220.1 RoP, R. 220.2 RoP, R. 264 RoP

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis): Art. 4, Art. 7(2), Art. 8(1), Art. 71b(2)


Was the article helpful?


Categories


Tags

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field