Key takeaways
Article 33(1), third paragraph UPCA, establishes alternative, not exceptional, competence for the Central Division regarding defendants outside Contracting Member States.
The provisions do not limit the Central Division’s competence for non-CMS defendants, nor does its placement imply a hierarchy over local or regional divisions.
The Central Division is competent for defendants domiciled outside CMS (Art. 33(1), third paragraph UPCA), substituting local/regional divisions, even with co-defendants in CMS.
This applies as the Central Division fills the jurisdictional gap when no local or regional division can claim competence based on the defendant’s domicile outside a CMS.
Avoiding parallel proceedings and contradictory decisions is crucial for multiple defendants, some outside CMS, supporting Central Division competence (Art. 33(1), third paragraph UPCA).
Requiring the claimant to bring action exclusively before a local/regional division would contradict the legislative intent to consolidate proceedings.
Central Division competence in such cases applies the anchor defendant mechanism of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA to all defendants, including those outside CMS.
This ensures the effectiveness of the competence rule for non-CMS defendants and prevents fragmented proceedings, applying to all defendants regardless of domicile.
The first contested order was only binding on the four defendants who filed the objection, not on all six defendants (Rule 20 RoP).
This procedural clarification explains why a second preliminary objection and subsequent appeal were necessary for the remaining defendants.
At the preliminary objection stage (Rule 19 RoP), competence is determined by a summary examination of claims and evidence, not an exhaustive assessment of merits.
This approach prevents prejudging the substantive outcome while efficiently resolving jurisdictional challenges based on commercial links and alleged infringement.
Division
Court of Appeal, Luxembourg
UPC number
UPC-CoA-4/2026, UPC-CoA-13/2026
Type of proceedings
Appeal against preliminary objection decisions concerning competence in an infringement action
Parties
- Appellant / Claimant: Valeo Systèmes d’essuyage
- Respondents / Defendants:
* Robert Bosch France SAS
* Robert Bosch GmbH
* Robert Bosch S.A.
* Robert Bosch Produktie S.A.
* Robert Bosch DOO Beograd (Bosch Serbia)
* Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd. (Bosch China)
Patent(s)
EP 2 671 766
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 33 UPCA, R. 19, 20 RoP
