Bostik v Henkel France (CFI, 16 June 2026)
| Date | 16 June 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_583/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_583/2025 |
| Parties | Bostic, 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
- 4 February 2026 : Bostic v Henkel France (CFI, 4 February 2026) UPC_CFI_583/2025
- 31 July 2026 : Bostik v Henkel France (CFI, 31 July 2026) UPC_CFI_583/2025
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
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 Exhibit PC 69, concerning a product withdrawn from the case, becomes moot (paragraph 28).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
- Practical point: a reply may answer an unexpected argument from the other side, in particular on insufficiency of evidence, without being excluded as late (paragraph 31).
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
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.
Parties
- defendantHenkel France3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantHenkel France Operations3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantHenkel technologies France3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantHenkel AG & Co KGaA3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantHenkel Nederland B.V.3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantHenkel Italia3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantBostic, Inc.2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 4 February 2026 Bostic v Henkel France (CFI, 4 February 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_583/2025
- 16 June 2026 Bostik v Henkel France (CFI, 16 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_583/2025
- 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
EP 1 725 627mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Bostik v Henkel France (CFI, 31 July 2026) cited in this record
- Bostic v Henkel France (CFI, 4 February 2026) cited in this record
- NJOY Netherlands v Juul Labs International (CFI, 17 January 2025) cited in this record
- Volkswagen v Network System Technologies (CoA, 18 September 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 1 725 627 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Bostik v Henkel France (CFI, 31 July 2026) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.