UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 365/2023

17. Okt. 2023·EP3511174 · PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE ORIGINAL PLATE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE, AND PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING METHOD

Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 579338/2023

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent verletzt)In der Berufung aufgehoben, 2. Juni 2026
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Mannheim LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Instruments
    Optics
  • Mechanical engineering
    Textile and paper machines
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
2. Apr. 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
30. Jan. 2026
Berufung
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
Mannheim LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Peter TochtermannGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Dirk BöttcherGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Peter AgergaardGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Erwin WismethGesperrtGesperrt

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 24 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 3254/2026·UPC CFI 3265/2026·UPC CFI 3269/2026·UPC CFI 3173/2026·UPC CoA 130/2026 und 19 weitere

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

Weitere Verfahren: Mannheim LD·2023

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-01-30
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Mannheim Local Division confirmed the earlier imposition of penalties order of 20 January 2026 against Kodak GmbH and related entities for non-compliance with a final judgment requiring provision of financial and technical information to FUJIFILM Corporation (EP 3 511 174). The Court rejected Kodak's challenge and upheld the maximum daily penalty as justified given the extent and seriousness of the non-compliance. Leave to appeal was granted to develop UPC case law on enforcement measures.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Imposition of penalties for non-compliance with court order
    • Enforcement of information disclosure obligations
    • Standard for maximum daily penalty
  • 2025-07-23
    Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Mannheim Local Division issued an enforcement order imposing penalty payments on Kodak entities for non-compliance with the obligation to destroy infringing embodiments under a prior decision. The Court granted Fujifilm's application for imposition of penalties for each week of non-compliance, while rejecting other enforcement requests. Defendants bear the costs.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
    • Enforcement – penalty payments for non-compliance with destruction order
    • Obligation to destroy infringing embodiments
  • 2025-04-02
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: 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 anzeigen (5)
    • Patent infringement
    • Counterclaim for revocation dismissed
    • Prior use right (Art. 28 UPCA)
    • UPC jurisdiction over lapsed national parts
    • Recall and destruction of infringing products
  • 2025-04-02
    Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Mannheim Local Division separated and ordered independent proceedings for claims and counterclaims relating to the UK national part of European patent EP 3 511 174, following the ECJ's judgment in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) regarding UPC's jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation. The Court acted after awaiting the ECJ decision which was delivered after the oral hearing.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Separation of proceedings – UK national part
    • UPC jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation (Art. 71a, 71b)
    • Impact of ECJ judgment C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte)
  • 2025-01-22
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Mannheim Local Division issued a preparatory procedural order ahead of the oral hearing in a patent infringement action brought by Fujifilm against Kodak entities concerning EP 3 511 174. The order set out preliminary views and questions on contested legal and technical points, including cross-border relief for the UK, interpretation of main vs. subsidiary requests, and claim construction, without making any final substantive ruling.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Preparation of oral hearing
    • Cross-border injunction (UK)
    • Pending ECJ case C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte)
    • Claim construction
    • Main vs. subsidiary requests
Dokumente
Alle 1012 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Receipt2026-10-20Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-10-20Nicht öffentlich
Application document Claimant2026-10-20Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-09-10Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-09-10Nicht öffentlich
Application document Applicant2026-09-10Nicht öffentlich
Application document Applicant2026-09-10Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-09-10Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-09-10Nicht öffentlich
Application document Applicant2026-09-10Nicht 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 3 511 174 (planographic printing plate technology) before the Mannheim Local Division. The court found infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered injunction, product destruction, recall, and EUR 300,000 interim costs. Subsequent enforcement proceedings were required when Kodak persistently failed to comply with the disclosure obligation, resulting in accumulated penalties of EUR 1,720,000 being confirmed in January 2026.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Infringement of EP 3 511 174 by Kodak's printing plate products in Germany

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA; EP 3 511 174

    Hinweis: The Mannheim Local Division found all three Kodak entities infringed the patent and ordered injunction, disclosure, destruction, recall, and EUR 300,000 interim costs.

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

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 3 UPCA; transitional provisions

    Hinweis: Court accepted this as a headnote principle limiting the scope of relief.

  • Prior use right defence must be pleaded in Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation and cannot be introduced later

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 24(g) RoP; R. 25(1)(b)(c) RoP; R. 29(c)(d) RoP

    Hinweis: The court confirmed the front-loaded pleading requirement applies to prior use right facts.

  • Penalty enforcement: maximum daily penalty of EUR 10,000 (later EUR 25,000) justified for persistent non-compliance with information/disclosure obligations

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 82 UPCA; enforcement provisions

    Hinweis: The January 2026 enforcement order confirmed accumulated penalties of EUR 1,720,000 based on ongoing non-compliance.

  • 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.

  • Counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 511 174

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA

    Begründung: The court dismissed the revocation counterclaim without detailed reasoning visible in the excerpts; the patent was maintained as granted.

  • Private prior use right under German law (Art. 28 UPCA)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 28 UPCA; German patent law

    Begründung: Under German law applicable via Art. 28 UPCA, a firm and final decision to use the subject matter must have been taken before the priority date; the burden of proof lies on the defendant and Kodak failed to discharge it by documents or witnesses.

  • Penalties imposed were disproportionate given pending legal questions on UPC enforcement

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 82 UPCA

    Begründung: The court found deficiencies in compliance were evident and persistent; a prudent party advised by experienced counsel would have taken all steps to avoid doubt; penalties accumulating over time were a foreseeable result of Kodak's deliberate non-compliance.

  • 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 has no jurisdiction over national patent parts that lapsed before 1 June 2023 or over non-UPCA member statesPrior use right (Art. 28 UPCA / German law) requires proof of firm decision to use before priority date; burden on defendantPrior use right facts must be presented in Statement of Defence / Counterclaim; subsequent briefs limited to responding to ReplyMaximum daily penalty is appropriate where non-compliance with information obligations is evident, persistent, and the result of deliberate choiceSetting of penalties is in the court's interest and not capped by claimant's requestUPC 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.

Herangezogener Stand der Technik
Zitierte Schriften und die Rolle, die sie gespielt haben.
  • WO [379] (prior art document cited in preparatory order in context of novelty/inventive step)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
  • EP 452 (prior art document cited in preparatory order for novelty and inventive step analysis)Neuheitsschädlich
  • EP 968 (cited in preparatory order for inventive step combination)Erfindungsmüh-Kombination
Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The preparatory order (January 2025) raised extensive questions on claim construction, including: the meaning and measurement of micropore parameters in features 1.5 and 1.7' (standard deviation argument); whether EP 452 disclosures in examples vs. general description can be combined; interpretation of the ratio in feature 1.7'; scope of 'first configuration' and 'second configuration' in EP 452; and whether feature 1.9 relates to DOP processing. The final merits decision (April 2025) found infringement without detailed construction visible in the excerpt.