UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 355/2023

11. Okt. 2023·EP3594009 · LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE ORIGINAL PLATE, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Keine Verletzung)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Instruments
    Optics
  • Mechanical engineering
    Textile and paper machines
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
21. Feb. 2024
Letzte Entscheidung
27. März 2024
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Ronny ThomasGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Berenice ThomGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Rute LopesGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Stefanie ParchmannGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Fujifilm Group (52 Verfahren)·Kodak Group (52 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

Dieser Streit umfasst 7 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 186/2025·CC 3088/2024·UPC APP 17472/2024·UPC APP 54506/2024·UPC APP 61143/2024 und 2 weitere

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2023

Entscheidungen
  • 2024-11-29
    Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Procedural order rejecting and disregarding Defendants' (Kodak entities) further written submissions filed on 28 November 2024 because no reasoned request was made and no leave was granted by the judge-rapporteur for further submissions pursuant to Rule 36 RoP.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
    • Admission of further written submissions (Rule 36 RoP)
    • Rejection of unauthorised submissions
  • 2024-11-29
    Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Procedural order granting the Claimant's request for simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral hearing scheduled for 17-18 December 2024, issued pursuant to Rule 109.1 RoP.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Simultaneous interpretation (Rule 109.1 RoP)
    • Fair trial principle
    • Equality of arms
  • 2024-08-02
    Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order addressing the scope of applications to amend the patent under R. 30 RoP and R. 263 RoP. The court clarified that amendments to auxiliary requests in an application to amend the patent are subject to R. 30.2 RoP (requiring court permission), and that territorial limitation of an amendment application should only be made if there are objective reasons for it under Art. 34 UPCA.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Admissibility of amended application to amend patent (R. 30.2 RoP)
    • Territorial limitation of patent amendment application (Art. 34 UPCA)
    • R. 263 RoP scope and amendments to auxiliary requests
  • —
    revocation counterclaim

    Zusammenfassung: A. The preliminary objection is rejected. B. The European patent EP 3 594 009 B1 is revoked in the territory of all Contracting Member States in which the patent has effect. C. The application to amend the patent in suit is dismissed. D. The infringement action is dismissed.

Dokumente
Alle 569 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Case Closure Formal Check2025-09-12Nicht öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-07-22Nicht öffentlich
Confirmation of appointment2025-07-22Öffentlich
Receipt2025-03-05Nicht öffentlich
250305_R115RoP_Request_EP009_signed2025-03-05Nicht öffentlich
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-01-28Nicht öffentlich
DecisionOutcome2025-01-28Nicht öffentlich
Decision2025-01-28Nicht öffentlich
Decision2025-01-28Öffentlich
578607-2023/OH/DUS-LOC/UPC202412170930AM/S012024-12-18Nicht öffentlich
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

FUJIFILM brought infringement proceedings against three Kodak entities concerning EP 3 594 009 B1 (lithographic printing plate technology) before the Düsseldorf Local Division, which also had jurisdiction over the UK patent part. The court upheld the revocation counterclaim and revoked the patent across all Contracting Member States on grounds of added matter and obviousness, dismissing FUJIFILM's amendments as insufficient to cure the defect. The infringement action was accordingly dismissed and costs awarded to Kodak.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • EP 3 594 009 B1 is invalid for added matter (Art. 123(2) EPC): amended claims require subject-matter not directly and unambiguously taught in the original application

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 123(2) EPC; Art. 138(1)(c) EPC

    Hinweis: The court applied a strict standard: direct teaching requires the subject-matter to be disclosed as a specific, clearly defined individual embodiment without deductive steps; unambiguous means beyond doubt, not merely probable.

  • UPC has jurisdiction over the UK part of the patent even when a revocation counterclaim is filed only for the German part, where the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: UPCA jurisdiction provisions; long-arm jurisdiction

    Hinweis: Headnote 1: jurisdiction over UK part of infringement action is unaffected by a counterclaim for revocation limited to the German part.

  • Implicit disclosure means only the clear, immediate and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly stated; a feature is implicitly disclosed if in carrying out the teaching the skilled person would inevitably arrive at it

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: EPO/UPC novelty doctrine

    Hinweis: This standard was applied in assessing prior art disclosure and added matter alike.

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

  • Narrowing claim construction based on description or drawings to exclude what is literally covered by claim language

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on Interpretation

    Begründung: Claim terms should normally be given their broadest technically sensible meaning; Art. 69 EPC and Protocol do not justify narrowing construction based on description; narrowing is only permitted if there are convincing case-specific reasons.

  • Application to amend the patent (FUJIFILM's auxiliary requests)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 123(2) EPC

    Begründung: All amendment requests were dismissed; the added matter defect could not be cured.

  • Infringement action concerning EP 3 594 009 B1

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA

    Begründung: Patent revoked; infringement action accordingly dismissed.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Claim terms receive their broadest technically sensible meaning; description-based narrowing requires convincing case-specific reasonsImplicit disclosure: only the clear, immediate and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly stated; a feature is implicitly disclosed if inevitably present when carrying out the teachingAdded matter under Art. 123(2) EPC: subject-matter must be directly (specific, clearly defined embodiment) and unambiguously (beyond doubt) taught in original applicationLong-arm jurisdiction: UPC has jurisdiction over UK patent part in infringement action where defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State, regardless of revocation counterclaim scope

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The Düsseldorf Local Division articulated a broad-meaning default for claim terms under Art. 69 EPC, rejecting any narrowing via description unless convincingly justified by individual case circumstances. This was applied in assessing both infringement scope and whether amendments introduced added matter.