Valeo v Bosch – Local Division Paris, 17 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_1963/2025)
In an order on a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP, the Paris Local Division clarified the meaning of the requirement in Art. 33.1(b) UPCA that, in case of multiple defendants, “the action relates to the same alleged infringement”. Several Bosch entities challenged the internal competence of the Paris Local Division, arguing that not all defendants were accused in relation to the same products.
The objection was rejected.
Under Art. 33.1(b) UPCA, an infringement action against multiple defendants may be brought before the local division where one defendant is domiciled, provided that (i) the defendants have a commercial relationship and (ii) the action concerns the “same alleged infringement”.
The defendants argued that this second condition requires identity of accused products across all defendants. Since different Bosch entities were allegedly involved in different product variants and distribution channels, the condition was said not to be fulfilled.
The Court rejected this interpretation as adding an unwritten requirement to the provision. It held that the expression “same alleged infringement” refers to the alleged infringement of the same patent, not to identical accused products, identical distribution chains, or identical territorial conduct.
It is sufficient that all defendants are alleged to infringe the same patent, even if:
The Court emphasised that Art. 33.1(b) must be interpreted in a flexible manner to avoid multiple proceedings and the risk of irreconcilable decisions. Membership in the same corporate group and participation in related commercial activities concerning the accused products were sufficient to establish the required commercial relationship.
