Opens in a new tab

Bostik v Henkel France (CFI, 16 June 2026)

Date16 June 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_583/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_583/2025
PartiesBostic, Inc. v. Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia …

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 16 June 2026, following the interim conference of 1 June 2026 in infringement action UPC_CFI_583/2025 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_1435/2025 (EP 1 725 627), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division sets the value of the case at EUR 6 million, records Bostik’s partial withdrawal as to two Henkel products, defines the skilled person and dismisses both sides’ requests to exclude arguments and exhibits filed in the last written submissions. The order clarifies the line between permissible clarification and a late new argument.

Question

Should the arguments and exhibits filed in the reply and rejoinder be disregarded as late?

Decision

No. A party may respond to the arguments in the other side’s last submission and clarify points already raised, provided it adds no new argument (paragraphs 24 and 25). Henkel’s exhibit QE 59 supplements a witness’s earlier statements and answers Bostik’s objections on public availability of technical documents (paragraph 26). Bostik’s exhibit PC 61 comes from a different author and was filed promptly after the earlier orders, with no procedural manoeuvre. Exhibits PC 62, 63, 66 and 67 answer Henkel’s argument based on a lack of evidence, which Bostik could not anticipate when filing its claim (paragraphs 30 and 31). Exhibit PC 69, concerning a product withdrawn from the case, becomes moot (paragraph 28). Recoverable costs are capped at EUR 600,000 (paragraphs 12 and 13).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 9.2, 29(e), 32.3, 36, 104, 105.5 and 106
Case law cited
Volkswagen v Network System Technologies, Court of Appeal, 18 September 2024, NJOY v Juul Labs, Paris Central Division, 17 January 2025

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CFI_583/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 4 February 2026 Bostic v Henkel France (CFI, 4 February 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_583/2025
  2. 16 June 2026 Bostik v Henkel France (CFI, 16 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_583/2025
  3. 31 July 2026 Bostik v Henkel France (CFI, 31 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_583/2025

    Le brevet EP 1 725 627 est annulé en totalité pour extension au-delà de la demande, la revendication ne retenant le seuil de 118,11 g/cm que pour la résistance cohésive. L'action en contrefaçon est rejetée.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Les demandes d’exclusion d’arguments et de pièces sont rejetées, la valeur du litige est fixée à 6 millions d’euros et l’homme du métier est défini.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 1 725 627Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Bostik v Henkel France (CFI, 31 July 2026)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.