Key takeaways
Commercial link (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA) requires relations between defendants regarding commercial activities for the alleged infringing product or range.
These activities include research and development, manufacturing, sales, and distribution of the product or product range.
Membership in the same corporate group can establish a commercial link (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA) if each defendant’s activity relates to the infringing products.
This applies provided the activity of each defendant within the group is connected to the product or range of products alleged to infringe.
The action must concern the same alleged infringement (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA).
The “same alleged infringement” condition (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA) requires acts to relate to the same patent and substantially the same product or range.
This assessment is summary, disregarding trade names or whether products are marketed through the same supply and distribution chain.
Jurisdiction at the preliminary objection stage is assessed by summary review, not a full merits assessment (Rule 19 RoP; Rule 333 RoP).
The Court does not conduct an exhaustive examination of evidence but relies on a summary appreciation of facts presented.
Division
Court of Appeal, Chamber 1e, Luxembourg
UPC number
UPC-CoA-50/2026
Type of proceedings
Appeal against an order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) concerning jurisdiction.
Parties
Appellants / Defendants: Robert Bosch DOO Beograd; Robert Bosch France SAS; Robert Bosch GmbH; Robert Bosch S.A. (Belgium); Robert Bosch Produktie S.A.; Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.
Respondent / Claimant: Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage
Patent(s)
EP 4 144 599
Jurisdictions
Germany, Belgium, France
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 19, 220.2, 333 RoP, Art. 25, 26, 33(1)(b) UPCA
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
