2026-10-22 - LD Paris - Valeo v. SEG Automotive France et al. - UPC-CFI-0001913/2026

Le défendeur n’a pas soulevé d’objection préliminaire dans le délai d’un mois après la notification effective du mémoire en demande, mais a invoqué dans son mémoire en défense, une exception d’incompétence. Le Défendeur était parfaitement recevable à le faire, sans que ne puisse lui être opposée la R.19.7 RoP. Headnotes: The defendant did not raise a preliminary objection within one month of the effective service of the statement of claim, but raised a lack of jurisdiction in its statement of defence. The defendant was perfectly entitled to do so, and Rule 19.7 of the Rules of Procedure could not be invoked against it.

The judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division dismissed the claimant's application under R. 361 RoP to reject as manifestly inadmissible the defendants' challenge to the UPC's international jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts in Spain. The defendants had not filed a preliminary objection within one month under R. 19.1 RoP but contested jurisdiction in their statement of defence. Following the Court of Appeal in NUC v HUROM, the judge-rapporteur held that international jurisdiction is governed by Brussels Ia via Art. 31 UPCA, that tacit prorogation under Art. 26(1) Brussels Ia requires a positive act revealing a deliberate choice, and that contesting jurisdiction in the statement of defence prevents prorogation irrespective of R. 19.7 RoP. The jurisdiction objection is therefore admissible and not manifestly bound to fail; costs are left to the merits.