UPC CFI 359/2023
11. Okt. 2023·EP3476616 · PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE ORIGINAL PLATE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE, AND PRINTING METHOD
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 578818/2023
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Keine Verletzung)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Fujifilm CorporationUnternehmen
Vertreter- Christof Augenstein-Kather Augenstein
- Tobias Hahn-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
Beklagte- Kodak GmbHUnternehmen
- Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHUnternehmen
- Kodak Holding GmbHUnternehmen
Vertreter- Elena Hennecke-Freshfields
- Division
- Mannheim LD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsOptics
- Mechanical engineeringTextile and paper machines
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 2. Apr. 2025
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Mannheim LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Peter Tochtermann | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Dirk Böttcher | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Peter Agergaard | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Erwin Wismeth | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Fujifilm Group (52 Verfahren)·Kodak Group (52 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 13 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 158/2026·UPC CFI 3255/2026·UPC CFI 3266/2026·UPC CFI 3270/2026·UPC CoA 881/2025 und 8 weitere
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Mannheim LD·2023
- 2025-04-02
Zusammenfassung: The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order separating proceedings with respect to the UK national part of EP 3 476 616 in the Fujifilm v. Kodak infringement action, pending the ECJ's ruling in case C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) on jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Separation of proceedings (R. 302.1, R. 303.2, R. 340.2 RoP)
- UPC jurisdiction over UK national patent part
- Brussels Ia Regulation (Art. 71a, 71b)
- ECJ referral C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte)
- 2025-01-30Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Pre-trial order of Mannheim Local Division in FUJIFILM v Kodak (EP 3 476 616) setting out preliminary views and questions from the judge-rapporteur in advance of the oral hearing. The order identifies key issues on claim construction, novelty and inventive step (prior art: WO 379, US 952, EP 452, JP 021, EP 408) and directs the parties' attention to specific technical questions requiring focused argument at the hearing.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Preparation of oral hearing – preliminary views under R. 101 RoP
- Claim construction
- Novelty and inventive step – reworking of prior art examples
- —revocation counterclaim
Zusammenfassung: A. The European patent EP 3 476 616 B1 is entirely revoked in the territory of Germany. B. The application to amend the patent is dismissed. C. The infringement action is dismissed. E. The Claimant is ordered to pay the Defendants the sum of EUR 300.000 as an interim award on the legal costs and other expenses.
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Mitteilung | 2026-10-20 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-10-20 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-20 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-10-20 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Mitteilung | 2026-10-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-10-12 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-12 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Fee | 2026-10-12 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-10-12 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-10-12 | Nicht öffentlich |
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.