UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 583/2025

4. Juli 2025·EP1725627 · COHESIVE COATING FOR SNACK FOOD PACKAGING

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Keine Verletzung)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Division
Paris LD
Technologie
  • Chemistry
    Macromolecular chemistry, polymers · Basic materials chemistry
  • Mechanical engineering
    Handling
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
4. Feb. 2026
Letzte Entscheidung
31. Juli 2026
EPA-Einspruch
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Paris LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Camille LignièresGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Carine GilletGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Maximilian HaedickeGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Rudi GoedeweeckGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Bostik, Inc. (3 Verfahren)·Henkel France (3 Verfahren)

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-07-31
    InfringementÖffentlich

    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)
  • 2026-06-16
    Infringement 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
  • 2026-02-04
    Infringement 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)
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Receipt2026-10-02Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-10-02Nicht öffentlich
Document Defendant2026-10-02Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-09-01Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-08-28Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-08-28Nicht öffentlich
Application Respondent2026-08-28Nicht öffentlich
Application Respondent2026-08-28Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-08-28Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-08-28Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • The minimum cohesive-strength value of 118.11 g/cm is implicitly disclosed in the original application

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: added matter - disclosure test
  • Because 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)
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

Keine zurückgewiesenen Argumente erfasst.