2026-07-15 - LD Paris - Valeo v. Bosch - UPC-CFI-0001963/2025

In Valeo's infringement action against six Bosch entities concerning EP 4 144 599, the Paris Local Division (judge-rapporteur Gillet) granted Valeo's requests to limit and partly withdraw its claims. The Court held that, whereas a change or modification to the nature of a case under R. 263.1/.2 RoP requires the Court's authorisation (weighing whether it could have been made earlier and whether it hinders the other party's defence), an unconditional limitation under R. 263.3 RoP is always granted. It classified Valeo's exclusion of the APX products and of the Belgian and German territories as unconditional limitations — not a change of claim, a withdrawal, a reformulation or a circumvention of Bosch's prior-use defence — because other claims remained and a claimant may freely define and narrow the territorial scope of its claims; the alleged prior-use right must in any event be assessed country by country under each national law. On the withdrawal against Defendant 5 (Bosch Produktie) under R. 265.1 RoP, the Court held that partial withdrawal against one of several defendants is permitted unless that defendant has a legitimate interest in a decision on the merits, and that Bosch Produktie showed none: the revocation counterclaim is unaffected by the withdrawal and would have erga omnes effect benefiting it, the Belgian prior-use question is irrelevant once Belgium is excluded, a prior-use defence is only a defence (not a counterclaim conferring a procedural right), and incurred defence costs alone are not a legitimate ground to oppose withdrawal. The confidentiality obligation was unaffected and the costs question was deferred while the action continues against the remaining defendants.