Valeo v. Bosch, Orders of the Court of Appeal, 22 June 2026, UPC_CoA_4/2026 and UPC_CoA_13/2026 ; UPC_CoA_50/2026
In two closely related orders issued on 22 June 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal provided important clarification on the interpretation of Article 33(1)(b) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) in multi-defendant infringement actions.
Taken together, the rulings address two key questions:
- the interaction between Article 33(1)(b) and the third subparagraph of Article 33(1) UPCA in situations where one defendant is established outside the UPC territory; and
- the scope of the commercial relationship and same alleged infringement requirements between defendants.
These decisions are of direct practical importance for the structuring of UPC actions against international corporate groups.
Valeo v. Bosch, UPC_CoA_4/2026 and UPC_CoA_13/2026
Background
On 16 September 2025, Valeo brought an infringement action based on patent EP 2 671 766 before the Paris seat of the Central Division (CD) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) against several Bosch entities, alleging acts of infringement in Germany, Belgium and France. Valeo relied on Article 33(1), third subparagraph, UPCA, arguing in particular that the CD had jurisdiction as one of the defendants was domiciled outside the UPC territory and that the requirements of a commercial relationship and of the same alleged infringement were met.
Four defendants lodged a preliminary objection (PO) under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP), challenging both the jurisdiction of the CD and the language of the proceedings, in particular on the basis that Article 33(1), third subparagraph, UPCA applies only where all defendants are domiciled outside the UPC territory.
By order of 23 December 2025, the judge-rapporteur (JR) upheld the objection, holding that Article 33(1), third subparagraph, UPCA constitutes an exception to the jurisdiction of local divisions (LDs) and does not apply where defendants are partly established within and partly outside the UPC territory. The JR therefore declined jurisdiction, referred the case to the Düsseldorf LD and designated English as the language of the proceedings.
Following service of the statement of claim, the Serbian and Chinese defendants lodged a further PO on similar grounds. By order of 21 January 2026, the JR confirmed the lack of jurisdiction of the CD in respect of those defendants and extended the referral to the Düsseldorf LD. In that context, the JR confirmed that it had taken into account the position of the Chinese and Serbian defendants when ruling on the first PO, even though they had not yet formally appeared in the proceedings.
Valeo’s appeal against the orders
Valeo appealed, challenging what it considered to be an unduly restrictive interpretation of Article 33(1), third subparagraph, UPCA by the Paris CD. It argued that this provision establishes an alternative head of jurisdiction in favour of the CD, rather than an exception to the jurisdiction of local or regional divisions, and that it applies as soon as at least one defendant is domiciled outside the UPC territory.
In response, Bosch submitted that Article 33(1), third subparagraph, UPCA constitutes an exception to the general jurisdiction of local and regional divisions under Article 33(1)(a) and (b) and therefore applies only where all defendants are domiciled outside the UPC territory. Bosch further argued that the anchor defendant mechanism applies solely to local or regional divisions and that, in the present case, jurisdiction lay with the Düsseldorf LD, given that the parent company, Robert Bosch GmbH, is domiciled in Germany and has a commercial link with the other defendants.
Order of the Court of Appeal
The Court first clarified the scope of the first contested order, holding that it was binding only on the parties who had lodged the preliminary objection, namely four Bosch entities, and not on all defendants in the proceedings.
The Court then set out the framework governing the internal allocation of jurisdiction between the divisions of the Court of First Instance under Article 33 UPCA, emphasising that this was distinct from the UPC’s international jurisdiction and had to be interpreted autonomously.
It recalled that, for infringement actions, jurisdiction may be based alternatively on the place of infringement or on the defendant’s domicile, without any hierarchy between these criteria. As regards the domicile criterion, the Court identified three scenarios:
- where a defendant was domiciled in a Member State hosting (or participating in) a local or regional division, jurisdiction lay with that division;
- where a defendant was domiciled outside the UPC territory, the CD had jurisdiction, not as an exception but as an alternative forum equivalent to a local or regional division; and
- where a defendant was domiciled in a Member State without a local division and not participating in a regional division, jurisdiction also lay with the CD.
In cases involving multiple defendants, the Court carried out a detailed and structured analysis of the anchor defendant mechanism. It confirmed that jurisdiction may be established on the basis of the domicile of one defendant, provided that the defendants are commercially linked and that the action concerns the same alleged infringement. The Court distinguished between several configurations depending on the location of the anchor defendant and emphasised that the mechanism applies uniformly across these scenarios, pursuing the overarching objective of avoiding parallel proceedings and the risk of conflicting decisions.
The Court extended that reasoning to situations where defendants are domiciled both within and outside the UPC territory. It examined the interaction between Article 33(1)(b) and the third and fourth subparagraphs of Article 33(1), and clarified that the CD may assume jurisdiction as a functional equivalent to a local or regional division where this is necessary to preserve the coherence and effectiveness of the system. It rejected any interpretation that would systematically prioritise the jurisdiction of a local or regional division where this would undermine procedural economy. In that context, Article 33(1), third subparagraph, was construed as ensuring the effectiveness and unity of the jurisdictional framework, rather than as a narrow exception.
Applying this framework, the Court held that the requirements of a commercial relationship and of the same alleged infringement were satisfied on a prima facie basis. It noted that Bosch Serbia was alleged to manufacture the infringing products and to be involved in their importation into the UPC territory, and that all Bosch entities belonged to the same corporate group. At the preliminary objection stage, the absence of a substantive challenge by Bosch on these points, combined with its own reliance on intra-group links to support the jurisdiction of the Düsseldorf LD, was sufficient to establish a commercial relationship within the meaning of Article 33(1) UPCA.
The Court further clarified that, at this stage, it was required to carry out only a limited review of the parties’ submissions and evidence, without prejudging the merits. On that basis, it found that the action concerned the same alleged infringement, as it related to the marketing and distribution of products alleged to infringe the same patent, notwithstanding differences in territorial scope or in the products attributed to each defendant.
The Court therefore overturned the contested orders and held that the CD had jurisdiction to hear the case, with French as the language of the proceedings.
Bosch v. Valeo, UPC_CoA_50/2026
On 12 December 2025, Valeo brought a further infringement action, again based on patent EP 2 671 766, before the Paris LD against several Bosch companies, in respect of alleged acts of infringement in Germany, Belgium and France.
Five defendants raised a PO under Rule 19 RoP, challenging both the jurisdiction of the Paris LD and the language of the proceedings, arguing in particular that the requirements of a commercial relationship and of the same alleged infringement under Article 33(1)(b) UPCA were not met. The Chinese defendant subsequently filed a similar PO after service of the statement of claim.
The JR joined the objections and dismissed them by order of 17 February 2026, holding that the commercial relationship must be assessed globally across all defendants and that the requirement of the same alleged infringement is satisfied where the action concerns infringement of the same patent. By order of 23 March 2026, the Paris LD confirmed that reasoning, dismissed the request to reject the infringement action and granted leave to appeal.
Bosch’s appeal against the order
On appeal, Bosch sought to set aside the order of the Paris LD, arguing for a strict interpretation of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA. It contended in particular that the anchor defendant must be involved in all relevant supply chains and that the condition of the same alleged infringement requires each defendant to participate in infringing acts relating to the same product or process, which it claimed was not satisfied.
Valeo argued that the commercial link requirement must be assessed globally and does not require a direct link with the anchor defendant. It further submitted that the same alleged infringement condition should be assessed by reference to the infringement of the same patent claims, noting that the products at issue were materially identical despite differences in commercial designations across market segments.
Order of the Court of Appeal
The Court first recalled that, under Article 33(1) UPCA, jurisdiction for infringement actions may be based either on the place of infringement or on the defendant’s domicile. In cases involving multiple defendants, jurisdiction based on domicile requires both the existence of a commercial link and that the action concerns the same alleged infringement. At the PO stage, the Court emphasised that jurisdiction must be assessed on a prima facie basis, without a full examination of the evidence or any prejudgment of the merits.
As regards the commercial link, the Court adopted a broad approach, holding that it may arise from direct or indirect relationships relating to the development, manufacture or marketing of the allegedly infringing products. It clarified that belonging to the same corporate group may suffice, provided that each defendant is involved in activities concerning the products at issue. In particular, it rejected the need for all defendants, including the anchor defendant, to participate in the same supply chain or for the anchor defendant to be involved in all such chains.
Applying these principles, the Court found that Bosch was sufficiently connected through its coordinated involvement across the various stages of production and commercialisation of the products, notwithstanding the existence of distinct supply chains.
As regards the condition of the same alleged infringement, the Court held that it is sufficient that the action relates to the infringement of the same patent in respect of the same product or product range. On a prima facie basis, it considered that the products at issue were structurally identical despite differences in commercial designation, and that Bosch had failed to demonstrate any material differences requiring a separate assessment.
The Court therefore concluded that both conditions under Article 33(1)(b) UPCA were satisfied and confirmed the jurisdiction of the Paris LD, dismissing the appeal.
The order is here.
Practical implications
These rulings reinforce a claimant‑friendly approach to Article 33(1)(b) UPCA and facilitate the centralisation of multi‑defendant actions before a single UPC division.
The Court confirms a broad assessment of the commercial link, with intra-group and indirect relationships constituting strong indicators, even where supply chains are fragmented. This limits the effectiveness of jurisdictional challenges based on organisational complexity.
The same alleged infringement requirement is also applied flexibly: differences in branding, markets or distribution channels are insufficient where the action concerns the same patent and materially similar products.
Finally, the Court confirms that the CD may assume jurisdiction in mixed scenarios involving defendants both inside and outside the UPC territory, reinforcing its role as an alternative forum.
Overall, these decisions promote procedural consolidation and make jurisdictional objections at the preliminary stage significantly more difficult to sustain.
