UPC CoA 28/2026
16. Feb. 2026·EP3511174 · PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE ORIGINAL PLATE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE, AND PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING METHOD
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedVerfahrensartBerufungKategorieHauptberufung
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Kodak GmbHUnternehmen
- Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHUnternehmen
- Kodak Holding GmbHUnternehmen
Vertreter- Kilian Seidel-Freshfields
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Technologie
- InstrumentsOptics
- Mechanical engineeringTextile and paper machines
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 3. Aug. 2026
| Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 124 |
| Richter Rian Kalden | Gesperrt |
| Richter Patricia Rombach | Gesperrt |
| Richter Ingeborg Simonsson | Gesperrt |
| Richter Max Tilmann | Gesperrt |
| Richter Lorenzo Parrini | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Kodak Group (52 Verfahren)·Fujifilm Group (52 Verfahren)
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: Court of Appeal·2026
- 2026-08-03AppealÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal set aside the Mannheim Local Division's penalty orders of 20 and 30 January 2026, which had ordered Kodak to pay EUR 1,720,000. Because the underlying first-instance decision had itself been set aside on appeal with retroactive effect, the legal basis for the penalties fell away. The value of the enforcement proceedings was set at EUR 1,000,000, Fujifilm was ordered to bear Kodak's costs, and the penalty payments already made were ordered refunded to Kodak.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
- retroactive effect of revocation of an order under Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.1 RoP
- no legal basis for penalty payments once the enforced decision is revoked
- value of enforcement proceedings determined by the claimant's interest (R. 370.6 RoP)
- penalties forfeited are payable to the Court and do not represent the claimant's interest
- unsuccessful party in enforcement proceedings (Art. 69(1) UPCA)
- enforcement pending appeal is at the enforcing party's risk (R. 354.2 RoP)
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Verfahren abgeschlossen | 2026-08-04 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Veröffentlichung der Anordnung | 2026-08-03 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2026-08-03 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2026-08-03 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-07-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-07-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Submission Appellant | 2026-07-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-07-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-07-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Respondent | 2026-07-13 | Nicht öffentlich |
Revocation of the first-instance decision under Art. 75(1) UPCA has retroactive effect, so the revoked order must be regarded as never having had legal effect and the penalty orders lose their legal basis
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 75(1) UPCA, R. 242.1 RoPPenalty payments already made must be refunded once the enforced decision is set aside
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 354.2 RoPThe value of the enforcement proceedings remains determined by the claimant's interest in having the decision upheld, not by the amount of penalties forfeited, which are payable to the Court
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 370.6 RoP
Kodak's conduct in the enforcement proceedings unnecessarily contributed to the costs and should be taken into account in the cost allocation
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69(1) UPCAThe penalties remained payable for breaches alleged to have occurred before the revocation of the enforced decision
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 82 UPCA, R. 354 RoP