UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: 17. Okt. 2023

UPC_CFI_365/2023

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

VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageMannheim LDInfringementCase Closed
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.

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.

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.