UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: —

ACT_578818/2023

PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE ORIGINAL PLATE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE, AND PRINTING METHOD

VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageMannheim LDInfringement Action—
ÜbersichtEntscheidungenBegründungZitateDokumenteZeitverlauf
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

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.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Patent lacks novelty/inventive step over prior art in Germany

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65(3) UPCA; Art. 54, 56 EPC

    Hinweis: 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 RoP

    Hinweis: 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.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Patent is valid and infringed by Kodak's lithographic printing plate products

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65(3) UPCA

    Begründung: 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 RoP

    Begründung: 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

    Kläger

    Begründung: 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.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
strict application principle under Art. 76(1) UPCA for patent amendmentR. 30 RoP requirement for application to amend patentnovelty and inventive step as grounds for revocationcosts follow the event under Art. 69(1) UPCA

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

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.