UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

ACT 579338/2023

—·EP3511174: PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE ORIGINAL PLATE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE, AND PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING METHOD

Verfahrensdetails
Status
—
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Tobias Hahn (Hoyng Rokh Monegier)
Beklagte
Vertreter: Elena Hennecke (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer)
Division
Mannheim LD
Richter
Technology
Industrial Manufacturing · Printing Plates
Sprache
—
Erste Entscheidung
22. Jan. 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
2. Apr. 2025
Ansprüche
Streitigall
Verletztall
Hinweise: Mannheim LD found infringement of EP3511174 B1 by Kodak entities for Germany; counterclaim for revocation dismissed; specific claim numbers not enumerated in operative part visible in excerpts.
Entscheidungen
  • 2025-04-02
    VerletztUnterlassung angeordnetVerletzung (Hauptsache)Infringement Action

    The Mannheim Local Division found that the Kodak defendants infringed EP 3 511 174 B1 owned by FUJIFILM Corporation, ordered an injunction, recall and destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and an interim award of EUR 300,000 toward legal costs; the defendants' counterclaim for revocation was dismissed.

    Rechtsfragen:Patent infringementCounterclaim for revocation dismissedPrior use right (Art. 28 UPCA)UPC jurisdiction over lapsed national partsRecall and destruction of infringing products
    Schadenersatz: 300,000
Dokumente
  • 2F8B93F8F746B6310CD3F129DB2EC5B5_en.pdf2025-04-02EN
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

FUJIFILM Corporation sued Kodak GmbH and two affiliated Kodak entities before the Mannheim Local Division for infringement of EP 3 511 174 B1 relating to planographic printing plates. The court found direct infringement, granted an injunction, recall and destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and a EUR 300,000 interim cost award. Kodak's prior use right defense was rejected for failure to adequately plead and prove the necessary facts, and the revocation counterclaim was dismissed.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Direct infringement of EP 3 511 174 B1 by making, offering and placing on the market planographic printing plates in Germany

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(a) UPCA

    Hinweis: Court found FUJIFILM's infringement claims fully established against all three Kodak defendants.

  • UPC lacks jurisdiction over national parts of UPCA member states that lapsed before 1 June 2023, and over non-UPCA-member state parts

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: UPCA jurisdictional rules

    Hinweis: Jurisdiction was limited accordingly as reflected in Headnote 1.

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

  • Prior use right defense under Art. 28 UPCA

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 28 UPCA; R. 24(g), R. 25(1)(b)(c), R. 29(c)(d) RoP; German law on prior use rights

    Begründung: Defendants failed to meet the burden of presenting and proving a firm and final decision to use the invention before the priority date; prior use right facts must be submitted in the Statement of Defense and Counterclaim for Revocation and cannot be raised later.

  • Counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 511 174 B1

    Beklagter

    Begründung: Dismissed entirely; no further details on the invalidity grounds visible in the excerpt.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
UPC jurisdiction limited to national parts in force on or after 1 June 2023 in UPCA member statesPrior use right under Art. 28 UPCA must be proved country-by-country with facts pleaded in Statement of DefenseBurden of proof for prior use right lies on defendantProcedural timeliness: grounds of revocation must be presented comprehensively in initial pleadings

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.