UPC CFI 583/2025

At the UPC: Bostik, Inc. (3 cases)·Henkel France (3 cases)

• 2026-07-31
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: 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.

  Show the legal issues (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 ActionPublic

  Summary: 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.

  Show the legal issues (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 ActionPublic

  Summary: 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.

  Show the legal issues (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)