ACT 578818/2023
—·EP3476616: PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE ORIGINAL PLATE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE, AND PRINTING METHOD
- Verfahrensdetails
- Status—VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- BeklagteVertreter: Elena Hennecke (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer)
- Division
- Mannheim LD
- Richter
- Peter Tochtermann · Presiding Judge
- Dirk Böttcher · Judge-Rapporteur
- Peter Agergaard · Legally Qualified Judge
- Erwin Wismeth · Technically Qualified Judge
- Technology
- Industrial Manufacturing · Printing Technology
- Sprache
- —
- Erste Entscheidung
- 30. Jan. 2025
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 2. Apr. 2025
- 2025-04-02Nichtig erklärtVerletzung (Hauptsache)Infringement Action
The Mannheim Local Division fully revoked European patent EP 3 476 616 in Germany and dismissed the infringement action brought by FUJIFILM against Kodak entities. The application to amend the patent was also dismissed. The court held that the patent was entirely invalid due to lack of novelty/inventive step in the German territory. No injunction was granted. Claimant was ordered to pay EUR 300,000 as interim award on legal costs. The value in dispute was set at EUR 15,000,000.
Rechtsfragen:Patent revocation (invalidity) in infringement proceedingsApplication to amend patent under R. 30 RoP and Art. 76(1) UPCARequirement for formal application to amend when defending in limited formDependent claim as new independent claim under R. 30 RoPCounterclaim for revocation
- 64906352A2C2791B171D2FEEBDEEE579_en.pdf2025-04-02EN
FUJIFILM Corporation sued Kodak GmbH and related entities in the Mannheim Local Division for infringement of EP 3 476 616, a lithographic printing plate patent. The court found the patent entirely invalid for Germany due to lack of novelty/inventive step, dismissed FUJIFILM's application to amend (for non-compliance with Art. 76(1) UPCA and R. 30 RoP), and dismissed the infringement action, ordering FUJIFILM to pay EUR 300,000 in interim legal costs.
Patent lacks novelty/inventive step over prior art in Germany
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65(3) UPCA; Art. 54, 56 EPCHinweis: Kodak successfully argued that EP 3 476 616 was entirely invalid for the German territory, leading to full revocation and dismissal of the infringement action.
Application to amend patent must comply strictly with R. 30 RoP and Art. 76(1) UPCA
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 76(1) UPCA; R. 30 RoPHinweis: The court held that FUJIFILM's application to amend was procedurally defective and dismissed it; reliance on a dependent claim as a new independent claim requires a proper R. 30 application.
Patent is valid and infringed by Kodak's lithographic printing plate products
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65(3) UPCABegründung: The court found the patent entirely invalid due to lack of novelty/inventive step in Germany; with the patent revoked, the infringement action could not succeed.
Patent amendment application should be allowed to limit claims and preserve validity
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 76(1) UPCA; R. 30 RoPBegründung: The application to amend was dismissed because FUJIFILM did not submit a clear and comprehensive application complying with Art. 76(1) UPCA and R. 30 RoP; merely relying on a dependent claim as a new independent claim does not satisfy the requirement.
Provisional injunction should be granted for the UK part of the patent pending further proceedings
KlägerBegründung: The court found no necessity to grant a provisional injunction for the UK national part given that the German part of the patent was invalid, balancing the parties' interests accordingly.
The excerpt does not detail specific claim construction analysis beyond noting that the patent relates to a lithographic printing plate precursor, manufacturing method, and printing method. The invalidity findings were based on lack of novelty/inventive step but the specific prior art references are not named in the available excerpt.