UPC_CoA_4/2026 – Valeo v Robert Bosch

Expert Commentary

Appeal preliminary objections Facts 1. Appeal of an order of the Paris Central Division. 2. Valeo started an infringement action in the Paris Central Division against Robert Bosch Doo, a Serbian company, Robert Bosch China, and 4 UPC based Bosch companies. 3. The four Robert Bosch companies established in the UPC raised a preliminary objection as to the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Central Division and the language used. 4. The Paris Central Division ruled that it lacked jurisdiction as to these four companies and ordered referral to the Local Division Düsseldorf and a change to the English language. 5. Valeo appealed. The Court of Appeal 1. The Court describes R. 220 RoP and R. 21.1 RoP. 2. The Court states: “An order by the judge-rapporteur which allows a Preliminary objection but does not terminate the proceedings as regards one of the parties is neither a “decision” which allows the Preliminary objection within the meaning of the first sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP, nor an order which “rejects” the Preliminary objection within the meaning of the second sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP.” In such a situation, R. 21.1 RoP second sentence is applicable, which means that you have to bring your appeal on the basis of R. 220.2 RoP. 3. So the appeal is admissible. 4. The suspensive effect requested by the respondents is refused. The fact that the respondents may have drafted their statement of defence in English in vain and may have to translate it to French if the appeal is successful, is not an extraordinary circumstance that justifies suspension of the order of the Paris Central Division. Comment 1. If you are interested in the procedural niceties of this, read the whole decision. For the daily practice, I summarize: a. If upholding a preliminary objection ends the case against one or more parties, then you can appeal directly (without the need of leave for appeal) (R. 220.1 RoP). This may happen, for instance, if the CFI finds that the UPC has no jurisdiction (e.g. a claimant only sues a UK company for infringement in the UK only, or a UPC company for infringement of a US patent). b. In all other situations, you have to appeal under R. 220.2 RoP (as Valeo did) and need leave for appeal. If such is refused by the CFI, you have to file a request to the Court of Appeal for discretionary review. 2. Respondent has now been given 15 days to respond to the Grounds of Appeal. 3. I already predicted that Valeo will not be successful. However, the Paris Central Division should have at least referred the case to the Local Division Brussels, where two of the four Bosch companies are established and where the case can proceed in French (the language of the Statement of Claim before the Paris Central Division and of the patent concerned).

Full Decision Text

1 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court on the admissibility of an appeal against an order ruling on a Preliminary objection Issued on 11 February 2026 HEADNOTE An order by the judge-rapporteur which allows a Preliminary objection but does not terminate the proceedings as regards one of the parties is neither a “decision” which allows the Preliminary objection within the meaning of the first sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP, nor an order which “rejects” the Preliminary objection within the meaning of the second sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP. In the case of such an order, which does not fall within any of the appeal scenarios referred to in Articles 73(1) and 73(2)(a) UPCA or Rule 220.1 RoP, the provisions of the second sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP shall apply by analogy. KEYWORDS Appeal against an order of the judge-rapporteur ruling on a Preliminary objection; R. 19, R. 21, R. 220 RoP; Art. 73 UPCA. APPELLANT AND CLAIMANT IN THE INFRINGEMENT ACTION BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE Valeo Systèmes D’essuyage, 34, Rue Saint-Andre 93012 Bobigny Cedex, France (hereinafter referred to as “Appellant” or “VALEO”) represented by Mr Lionel Martin, attorney-at-law at the Paris Bar and representative before the UPC, and by other representatives of Cabinet August Debouzy, Paris, France RESPONDENTS, DEFENDANTS IN THE INFRINGEMENT ACTION BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, AND APPLICANTS IN THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION - ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, 32 avenue Michelet, 93400, Saint-Ouen-Sur-Seine, France - ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, 1 Robert-Bosch-Platz, 70839 Gerlingen, Germany - ROBERT BOSCH S.A, 1 rue Henri-Joseph Genesse, 1070 Anderlecht, Belgium - ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, Hamelendreef 80, 3300 Tienen, Belgium Appeal no.: UPC CoA 4/2026 2 RESPONDENTS, AND DEFENDANTS IN THE INFRINGEMENT ACTION BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE - ROBERT BOSCH DOO, Beograd, 90E/IV Omladinskih brigada, 11070, Beograd, Serbia - BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD., 26, Lixiangzhong Road, Economic and Technological Development Zone, Changsha County, Hunan Province, 410100 Changsha, China hereinafter referred to collectively as “Respondents” represented by Mr Johannes Heselberger, representative before the UPC, Bardehle Pagenberg, Munich, Germany PATENT AT ISSUE EP 2671766 COMPOSITION OF THE PANEL Panel 1e, composed as follows: Klaus Grabinski, President of the Court of Appeal, Emmanuel Gougé, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur, Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge. LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS French IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE □ Order of the Central Division (Paris section) of 23 December 2025, UPC CFI 809/2025 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Proceedings before the CFI 1. Appellant brought an action for infringement of the patent at issue against Respondents before the Central Division (Paris section) of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (hereinafter “CD Paris”). 2. Four of the respondent companies – Robert Bosch France SAS, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch SA, and Robert Bosch Produktie SA – lodged a Preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) concerning CD Paris’ jurisdiction and the language of proceedings. 3. CD Paris ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the infringement claim and, granting VALEO's auxiliary request, ordered that the infringement action be referred back to the Düsseldorf Local Division and ruled that the language of proceedings would be English (procedural order of the judge-rapporteur of 23 December 2025, hereinafter “the impugned order”). The appeal proceedings 4. Appellant appealed the impugned order on the basis of Rule 220.2 RoP. In particular, Appellant asks the Court of Appeal to rule that CD Paris has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action (UPC CFI 809/2025), to order 3 that the infringement action be referred back to CD Paris, and to rule that the language of proceedings shall be French. 5. Following observations made by the registry as part of the examination as to formal requirements of the Statement of appeal (R. 229 RoP), Appellant corrected the formal deficiencies and filed additional observations concerning the basis on which it had appealed the impugned order. 6. The judge-rapporteur invited Respondents to submit their comments on the admissibility of the appeal and, pending the decision to be taken on the admissibility of the appeal, ordered the suspension of the time limit referred to in Rule 235 RoP for Respondents to file their Statement of response. 7. Respondents conclude that the appeal is inadmissible and, in the alternative, request that, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 21.2 RoP, the first-instance proceedings be stayed until the Court has ruled on the appeal (pleading of 28 January 2026). 8. Appellant requests that the auxiliary request be rejected, on the grounds, in particular, that Respondents limit their argument to the possible translation costs that a referral of the proceedings on the merits back to CD Paris would entail for them, and that they do not advance any exceptional circumstances in support of their request. The parties' arguments on the admissibility of the appeal proceedings 9. In particular, Appellant argues that the impugned order is neither a decision on the merits nor a decision terminating the proceedings, and moreover that it is not included in the exhaustive list of orders given in Rule 220.1(c), and as a result the appeal the order of CD Paris cannot be brought under the conditions of Rule 220.1 RoP and must therefore be brought on the basis of Rule 220.2 RoP, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 21.1 RoP, which do not preclude the Defendant to the Preliminary objection from having recourse to the appeal procedure provided for in Rule 220.2 RoP. 10. Respondents are of the opinion that, in the case of a decision of the judge-rapporteur allowing the Preliminary objection, the specific appeal regime set out in the first sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP applies, which expressly refers to the provisions of Rule 220.1(a) RoP that are applicable to decisions on the merits, even if the decision under appeal is not a decision on the merits. They point out that the fact that the impugned decision has the title “Procedural Order” cannot be taken into consideration. They further argue that even if Appellant had chosen the route of appeal defined in Rule 220.1(a) RoP by reference to Rule 21.1 RoP, which they consider to be the correct one, Appellant’s appeal would still not have been admissible, insofar as this route of appeal would only be open to Appellant if the latter had been “adversely affected” by the impugned decision, which is not the case. GROUNDS Admissibility of the appeal 11. An appeal against a decision or order of the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) may be brought before the Court of Appeal under the conditions set out in Article 73 of the UPC Agreement (“UPCA”). 12. If the appeal is against a decision of the CFI, it may be brought by any party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions, within two months of the date of the notification of the decision (Art. 73(1) UPCA). 13. If the appeal is against an order, it may be brought by any party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions, in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 73(2) UPCA, which provides for two distinct regimes. 4 14. The first regime for appealing against CFI orders set out in Article 73 UPCA relates to the orders referred to in Article 49(5) as well as Articles 59 to 62 and 67 UPCA, and stipulates that the appeal must be brought within 15 calendar days of the notification of the order to the applicant (Art. 73(2)(a) UPCA). 15. The second regime for appealing against CFI orders set out in Article 73 UPCA relates to orders other than those referred to in Article 73(2)(a) UPCA, and stipulates that, for these, the appeal may be brought together with the appeal against the decision, or, where the Court grants leave to appeal, within 15 days of the notification of the Court's decision to that effect (Art. 73(2)(b)(i) and (ii) UPCA). 16. The provisions of the UPC Agreement are supplemented by those of the Rules of Procedure (“RoP”) which, in accordance with Article 41 UPCA, lay down the details of the proceedings before the Court and provide that in the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Agreement and/or the Statute on the one hand and of the Rules on the other hand, the provisions of the Agreement and/or the Statute shall prevail (Art. 41(1) UPCA and RoP, preamble, first recital). 17. Rule 220 RoP, on appealable decisions, distinguishes between, on the one hand, decisions and orders that can be appealed immediately and without the prior leave of the CFI (R. 220.1 RoP) and, on the other hand, orders, other than those referred to in rule 221.1 RoP, that may be either the subject of an appeal together with the appeal against the decision or may be appealed with the leave of the CFI (R. 220.2 RoP). 18. For an appeal to be brought under the conditions set out in Rule 220.1 RoP, it must concern (a) a final decision, (b) a decision terminating proceedings as regards one of the parties, or (c) one of the exhaustive list of orders (R. 220.1 RoP). In the case of orders not covered by the list in the preceding sentence, an appeal may be brought only under the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of Rule 220 RoP. 19. In the specific case of Preliminary objections referred to in Rule 19 RoP, Rule 21.1 RoP provides that a decision of the judge-rapporteur allowing the Preliminary objection may be appealed pursuant to Rule 220.1(a) RoP (Rule 21.1 RoP, first sentence), whereas an order of the judge-rapporteur rejecting the Preliminary objection may only be appealed pursuant to Rule 220.2 RoP (Rule 21.1 RoP, first sentence). 20. An order by the judge-rapporteur which allows a Preliminary objection but does not terminate the proceedings as regards one of the parties is neither a “decision” which allows the Preliminary objection within the meaning of the first sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP, nor an order which “rejects” the Preliminary objection within the meaning of the second sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP. In the case of such an order, which does not fall within any of the appeal scenarios referred to in Articles 73(1) and 73(2)(a) UPCA or Rule 220.1 RoP, the provisions of the second sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP shall apply by analogy. 21. In the case at hand, the impugned order deals with a question of jurisdiction that is internal to the UPC, and orders that the action be referred back to another division, without terminating the proceedings as regards any of the parties. 22. Appellant was therefore correct in bringing their appeal on the basis of Rule 220.2 RoP. 23. It follows that Respondents' additional argument, that the appeal should be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to the provisions of Rule 229.4 RoP on the grounds that Appellant wrongly paid the reduced appeal fee provided for appeals under Rule 220.2 RoP instead of the appeal fee corresponding to an appeal under Rule 220.1(a) RoP, also cannot be upheld and that Respondents' request in this respect must be rejected. 24. Finally, Respondents' argument that Appellant would not be adversely affected by the impugned order must also be rejected. The impugned order, insofar as it rejected VALEO's main request to confirm the jurisdiction of CD Paris, adversely affects the latter, whether the appeal is brought under Rule 220.1(a) or Rule 220.2 RoP. 5 Suspensive effect 25. Respondents' alternative request, for a stay of the first-instance proceedings, is rejected for the following reasons. 26. In the specific case of an appeal against a decision or order concerning a Preliminary objection, Rule 21.2 RoP states that, if an appeal is lodged, proceedings at first instance may be stayed by the judge-rapporteur or the Court of Appeal on a reasoned request by a party. 27. As a general rule, the main proceedings are not stayed during the appeal proceedings, as the principle is that proceedings before the Court of First Instance should proceed, subject to the cases provided for in Article 74(2) UPCA, without being delayed by appeal proceedings (R. 223 RoP, Art. 74 UPCA). A stay may, however, be ordered in exceptional circumstances, having regard to the circumstances of the case, such as the stage of the proceedings before the CFI, the stage of the appeal proceedings and the interests of the parties (UPC CoA 227/2024, APL 26889/2024, 21 June 2024, Mala v. Nokia). 28. In the present case, Respondents justify their request for suspensive effect on the ground that they risk having drafted their Statement of defence in English in vain. They argue that, if the appeal is successful and the case is referred back to CD Paris, they would then have to translate the Statement of defence into French. 29. However, the risk described by Respondents is not such as to constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an order to stay the proceedings at first instance. 30. At this stage of the proceedings, the possibility that the Respondents might have to translate their Statement of defence remains purely hypothetical, and is not requested by Appellant in their Statement of appeal. On the contrary, Appellant expressly requests that, with regard to pleadings and exhibits filed by the parties prior to the date of the forthcoming appeal judgment in the proceedings on the merits before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the parties be exempted from producing translations into French. 31. In view of the circumstances of this case, and considering the need to organize the proceedings in the most efficient and economical way (RoP, preamble, recital 4), Respondents' request to stay the first-instance proceedings must therefore be rejected. Statement of response 32. Given that Respondents have had knowledge of the Statement of appeal and of the Statement of grounds of appeal since 20 January 2026, and that, by order dated 21 January 2026, the judge-rapporteur ordered the suspension of the time limit referred to in Rule 235 RoP for Respondents to file their Statement of response pending the decision to be taken on the admissibility of the appeal, Respondents are instructed to file their Statement of response within 15 days of the date of the present order. 6 ORDER The Court of Appeal - ruling on the admissibility of the appeal filed by Appellant, declares the appeal admissible; - declares that Respondents must file their Statement of response within 15 days of the date of the present order. Issued at Luxembourg on 11 February 2026 Klaus Grabinski, President of the Court of Appeal, Emmanuel Gougé, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur, Ingeborg Simonsson, legally qualified judge.

Key Holdings

• An appeal against an order allowing a preliminary objection that does not terminate proceedings for a party is admissible under R. 220.2 RoP, requiring leave for appeal.
• Direct appeal without leave (R. 220.1 RoP) is only possible if upholding a preliminary objection ends the case against one or more parties.
• Suspensive effect for an appeal is refused if there are no extraordinary circumstances.
• The potential need to translate a statement of defence due to an appeal is not considered an extraordinary circumstance for granting suspensive effect.

Tags

• Appeal
• Preliminary Objection
• Jurisdiction
• Language
• Suspensive Effect
• Procedure

Related Cases

• UPC_CoA_523/2024 – Docket Navigator v Sumi Agro and Syngenta
• UPC_CoA_917/2025 – Merz v Viatris
• UPC_CoA_891/2025 – Centripetal v Palo Alto Networks
• UPC-COA-0000894/2025 – Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v bellissa HAAS GmbH
• UPC_CoA_012/2026 – Amazon v Interdigital