LD Paris, July 18, 2026, Time Extension Request, UPC_CFI_1963/2025, UPC_CFI_1247/2026

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.

Explore Firm Details

The Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in consolidated infringement proceedings between Valeo Wiper Systems and multiple Robert Bosch entities concerning European Patent EP 4 144 599. The ruling addresses procedural matters under Rule 9.3 of the Rules of Procedure in this patent dispute involving automotive wiper system technology.

France Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Sabrina Hütt’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

in United States

1. Key takeaways

The burden of diligence to obtain access to a non-confidential version of a brief lies with the party seeking it

Where an unredacted version of a brief (marked highly confidential “HC” in the CMS, only accessible to the court) is filed simultaneously with a redacted version (marked mutual “M” in the CMS, accessible to the parties), the party seeking access must promptly request reclassification from the Registry or the opposing party’s representative rather than remain passiv (p. 3, penultimate paragraph).

No extension of time limits where a party’s own lack of diligence caused the alleged procedural difficulty (R. 9.3 RoP)

A party cannot rely on its own failure/negligence to request access to an unredacted document already uploaded by the opposing party (about one month ago) within a reasonable time to justify an extension of the deadline to submit the next brief. The court may reject such a request under R. 9.3 RoP where the alleged obstacle results from the requesting party’s own inaction (p. 4, fifth and sixth paragraphs).

If the redacted version of a party’s brief indicates that the redacted passages consist solely of portions of documents belonging to the opposing party, then it can be assumed that the opposing party is already familiar with the content (p. 4).

Filing a combined brief only in the CMS track dedicated to the infringement action, and not simultaneously in the linked revocation track, causes no prejudice to the opposing party

Although the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation are two separate tracks, they are linked within the CMS. No prejudice arises from filing in only one track, particularly where the opposing party previously adopted an identical approach by filing a single combined brief itself (p. 4, first paragraph).

2. Division

Local Division Paris

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_1963/2025

UPC_CFI_1247/2026

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement proceedings

5. Parties

Claimant: Valeo Wiper Systems

Defendants: Robert Bosch DOO Beograd; Robert Bosch France S.A.S.; Robert Bosch GmbH; Robert Bosch S.A.; Robert Bosch Produktie S.A.; Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.

6. Patent(s)

EP 4 144 599

7. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 9.3 RoP.

To view the full article please click here.

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.

[View Source]