UPC CFI 583/2025
4. Juli 2025·EP1725627 · COHESIVE COATING FOR SNACK FOOD PACKAGING
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Keine Verletzung)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Beklagte
- Henkel FranceUnternehmen
- Henkel France OperationsUnternehmen
- Henkel Technologies FranceUnternehmen
- Henkel AG & Co. KGaAUnternehmen
- Henkel Nederland B.V.Unternehmen
- Henkel ItaliaUnternehmen
Vertreter- Marcus Grosch-Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
- Division
- Paris LD
- Technologie
- ChemistryMacromolecular chemistry, polymers · Basic materials chemistry
- Mechanical engineeringHandling
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 4. Feb. 2026
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 31. Juli 2026
- EPA-Einspruch
- Henkel AG & Co. KGaAZulässig2009-06-24
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Paris LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Camille Lignières | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Carine Gillet | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Maximilian Haedicke | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Rudi Goedeweeck | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Bostik, Inc. (3 Verfahren)·Henkel France (3 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 2 weitere Verfahren
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2026-07-31InfringementÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Paris Local Division declared European Patent EP 1 725 627, both as granted and as amended under the claimant's auxiliary request AR1, invalid in its entirety because Claim 1 omits a minimum adhesive-strength requirement and thus extends beyond the disclosure of the original application (added matter/intermediate generalisation). As the patent was invalid, Bostik's infringement action against the Henkel defendants was dismissed and Bostik was ordered to bear all costs of the proceedings.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
- Added matter / subject-matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed
- Claim construction (cohesive strength vs. adhesive strength; meaning of 'non-resealability')
- Intermediate generalisation
- Effect of auxiliary requests on an added-matter objection
- Costs following the event (Art. 69 UPCA, R.118.5 RoP)
- 2026-06-16Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The judge-rapporteur issued a post-interim-conference order under R.105.5 RoP, setting the case value at EUR 3 million each for the infringement action (UPC_CFI_583/2025) and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1435/2025). Both parties' applications to exclude the other's exhibits and arguments were dismissed, and the interim procedure was closed to commence the oral hearing phase.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
- case value determination under R.104 RoP
- exclusion of late-submitted arguments and exhibits
- claim interpretation of EP 1 725 627 B1 features (non-self-crosslinking emulsion, peelable non-resealable closure, cohesive strength, drying temperature)
- direct and indirect infringement by Liofol CS22-861 and CS7300-21 products
- validity challenges on added matter, insufficient disclosure, novelty, and inventive step
- jurisdiction over Spanish and UK national parts of the patent
- 2026-02-04Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: In an ongoing infringement action brought by Bostik against several Henkel entities over French patent EP 1 725 627, the Paris LD judge-rapporteur granted in part Bostik's Art. 59 UPCA / R.190 RoP application to produce evidence, ordering the Henkel respondents to produce via the Court's CMS updated technical data sheets (or confirmations of continued accuracy) for four accused LOCTITE LIOFOL products, within two weeks of the order. The Court rejected Bostik's request for a penalty payment for non-compliance and rejected, at this stage, Bostik's request for leave to submit further written pleadings on the produced evidence. No infringement, validity or damages issue was decided.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Application to produce evidence under Art. 59 UPCA / R.190 RoP
- Standard of 'reasonably available and plausible evidence' required to support a request to produce evidence held by the opposing party
- Request for a periodic penalty payment to secure compliance with a document-production order
- Mode of communication of produced evidence (Court's CMS vs. email, R.4.1 RoP)
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-10-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Document Defendant | 2026-10-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Mitteilung | 2026-09-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-08-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-08-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application Respondent | 2026-08-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application Respondent | 2026-08-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Respondent | 2026-08-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Respondent | 2026-08-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
The minimum cohesive-strength value of 118.11 g/cm is implicitly disclosed in the original application
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: added matter - disclosure testBecause Claim 1 as granted refers only to a minimum cohesive strength and omits any corresponding minimum adhesive strength, it encompasses embodiments (adhesive strength below 118.11 g/cm) not disclosed in the original application; this is an impermissible intermediate generalisation extending beyond the content of the application as filed
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: added matter (subject-matter extending beyond the disclosure of the application as filed)
Keine zurückgewiesenen Argumente erfasst.