Bostik v Henkel France (CFI, 31 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 31 July 2026, the Paris Local Division revokes in its entirety Bostik’s European patent EP 1 725 627 (cohesive coating for snack food packaging), which had already expired, for added matter, and consequently dismisses the infringement action brought against six Henkel group companies. The decision is given in the infringement action UPC_CFI_583/2025 and the counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_1435/2025.

The decision is of interest for its application of the intermediate generalisation concept to a numerical threshold: the application disclosed a minimum bond strength applying to both cohesion and adhesion, and a claim limited to cohesive strength covers embodiments the application did not disclose. It also confirms that maintenance of the patent by the EPO is no answer to an added matter attack the EPO never examined.

Facts and procedure

On 4 July 2025 Bostik sued Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel Technologies France, Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V. and Henkel Italia over Loctite Liofol cold-seal products, for France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom (paragraph 4). Henkel counterclaimed for revocation. Bostik filed three conditional auxiliary requests to amend (paragraphs 5 and 6). The language of the proceedings was changed from French to English on 8 September 2025 (paragraph 9). On 29 May 2026 Bostik withdrew its claims for two of the four products (paragraphs 14 and 17).

The patent, granted on 1 October 2018, expired on 11 February 2025 (paragraph 18). An opposition filed by Henkel in 2009 ended, after two rounds before the Board of Appeal, with the patent maintained as granted in 2022, the late-filed added matter ground had been held not prima facie relevant by the Opposition Division (paragraph 19). Jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division was undisputed (paragraph 16).

The applicable law

Art. 138(1)(c) EPC allows revocation where the subject-matter of the patent extends beyond the content of the application as filed (paragraph 66). The court applies the Court of Appeal test: there is added matter where the granted claim goes beyond what the skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously from the application as filed, implicit disclosure included (paragraph 67). The claim is construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol.

Question

Is claim 1, which requires a cohesive strength of the closure of at least 118.11 g/cm (feature 1.2.2) without any minimum adhesive strength, an unallowable intermediate generalisation?

Decision

Yes. The only reference to 118.11 g/cm in the application as filed is in paragraph [0005] and concerns the bond strength of the closure (paragraph 72). The application does not use the terms adhesive or cohesive strength: the measured strength is that of whichever bond fails first, so a minimum bond strength implies that both adhesion and cohesion exceed the threshold (paragraphs 73 to 75). The cohesive minimum is therefore implicitly disclosed, but leaving the adhesive minimum out of the claim is an intermediate generalisation (paragraph 76). Claim 1 covers closures with an adhesive strength below 118.11 g/cm, for which the application provides no support (paragraphs 77 and 78).

The court does not rule on insufficiency, novelty or inventive step (paragraph 79). The auxiliary requests, which concern the composition, do not address added matter and are not examined (paragraph 80). The operative part records the partial withdrawal, declares the patent invalid in its entirety and in its amended form based on auxiliary request AR1, dismisses the infringement action and orders Bostik to bear all the costs (Rule 118.5 RoP and Art. 69 UPCA, paragraph 82).

Key points for practice

• A numerical value linked in the application to an overall concept (bond strength) cannot be claimed for only one of its components without an intermediate generalisation.
• Maintenance of the patent after opposition does not prevent revocation for added matter where the EPO did not examine that ground on the merits (paragraphs 19 and 68).
• Auxiliary requests confined to the composition are set aside unexamined if they do not cure the ground of invalidity upheld (paragraph 80).
• Practical point: where the application defines a threshold only for the bond as a whole, check that the claim and the auxiliary requests carry that threshold over to every failure mode.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 32, 33, 69 and 73

Rules of Procedure

Rules 36, 118.5, 190 and 220.1

European Patent Convention

Art. 69, Art. 138(1)(c)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts. 4(1) and 8(1)

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Abbott v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_646/2024), Sinocare v Menarini Diagnostics, Court of Appeal, 30 March 2026, Abbott v Sinocare, Court of Appeal, 17 April 2026

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.