UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 881/2025

18. Sept. 2025·EP3476616 · PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE ORIGINAL PLATE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE, AND PRINTING METHOD

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent verletzt)
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technologie
  • Instruments
    Optics
  • Mechanical engineering
    Textile and paper machines
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
13. Juli 2026
Im Vergleich
Wie lange das Gericht bis zu einer ersten Entscheidung braucht.
Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC124
Richter Rian KaldenGesperrt
Richter Ingeborg SimonssonGesperrt
Richter Patricia RombachGesperrt
Richter Max TilmannGesperrt
Richter Lorenzo ParriniGesperrt

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

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

Dieser Streit umfasst 13 weitere Verfahren

UPC CoA 158/2026·UPC CFI 3255/2026·UPC CFI 3266/2026·UPC CFI 3270/2026·UPC CFI 766/2025 und 8 weitere

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

Weitere Verfahren: Court of Appeal·2025

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-07-13
    Appeal RoP220.1Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance decision (German designation) and found EP 3 476 616 valid and infringed by Kodak's Sonora X, Sonora Xtra-2 and Sonora Xtra-3 lithographic printing plate precursors; Kodak's counterclaim for revocation was dismissed and a full injunction, damages, recall and destruction were ordered for Germany. For the UK designation (UPC_CoA_881/2025 and UPC_CoA_873/2025), Fujifilm's appeal was dismissed because Fujifilm failed to establish an infringing act by any Kodak defendant in the UK; Kodak's conditional counterclaim for revocation of the UK designation was declared unfulfilled and therefore not decided.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (14)
    • Admissibility of defence of dependent claims without auxiliary request under R.30 RoP
    • Patentee's obligations under R.29A RoP to identify dependent claim combinations
    • Novelty over public prior use (Sonora X / T41 plates before priority date of 31 August 2017)
    • Novelty over WO 2018/160379 A1 (Art. 54(3) EPC) and US 4 566 952 A
    • Inventive step starting from EP 2 878 452 A1, EP 2 594 408 A1 or JP 2015-189021 A in combination with EP 2 839 968, EP 1 614 541 A2, JP H08-144090 A
    • Scope of centrally limited claim 1 under Art. 105b(2) EPC during appeal proceedings
    • Direct infringement of claim 1 by Sonora X, Sonora Xtra-2 and Sonora Xtra-3 plates (Germany)
    • Indirect infringement of method claims 10 and 11
    • Private prior use defence under Sec. 12 German Patent Act / Art. 28 UPCA
    • UPC jurisdiction over UK designation of EP under Art. 4 Brussels Regulation I / BSH v Electrolux (CJEU C-339/22)
    • Conditions for non-EU/LC European patent infringement actions and appropriate exercise of jurisdiction
    • Proportionality of injunction and publication on website (Art. 80 UPCA)
    • Penalty clauses for enforceable monetary obligations (Headnote 7)
    • Costs allocation and interim award under R. 150.2 RoP
Dokumente
Alle 83 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Formal Deficiency found2026-09-17Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-09-14Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-09-14Nicht öffentlich
Application Respondent2026-09-14Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-09-14Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-09-14Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-09-14Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-09-14Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-09-14Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-09-14Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Patentee may defend dependent claims (including combinations encompassed by the granted claims) without filing an auxiliary request under R.30 RoP; R.30 RoP applies only to amendments deviating from the granted wording

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R.29A RoP; R.30 RoP; Art.65(3) UPCA; Art.138(2) EPC

  • All three Sonora plate variants (Sonora X, Xtra-2, Xtra-3) directly infringe claim 1 of EP 3 476 616 as centrally limited; measurements in Analysis Report K15 are reliable and the manufacturing process is irrelevant to claim construction

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art.25 UPCA; claim 1 of EP 3 476 616

  • Patent is novel: Kodak's T41/Sonora X delivery to Laserline on 12 October 2017 was after the first priority date and was a test delivery under implied confidentiality; WO'379 does not disclose features 1.3.6-1.3.8; US'952 does not disclose features 1.3.7-1.3.8

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art.54 EPC

  • Patent has inventive step: starting documents EP'452, EP'408 and JP'021 do not disclose lightness L*, steepness a45 or surface area ΔS and there is no pointer to consult EP'968, EP'541, JP'459, JP'090 or JP'264 to arrive at those features

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art.56 EPC

  • Kodak cannot rely on a private prior use right because it had not taken a firm and final decision to commercialise the Sonora X plate in its final composition before the priority date of 31 August 2017

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Sec.12 German Patent Act; Art.28 UPCA

  • UPC has jurisdiction over infringement of the UK designation pursuant to Art.4 Brussels Regulation I (defendant domiciled in Germany) as confirmed by BSH v Electrolux (CJEU C-339/22)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art.4 Brussels Regulation I; Art.71a-71b Brussels Regulation I; BSH v Electrolux (C-339/22)

  • Fujifilm failed to prove that any Kodak defendant carried out an infringing act of importing into the UK; title to attacked embodiments was retained by Kodak Ltd (UK) not Kodak Graphic, so Kodak Graphic was not importing

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: s.60(1)(a) Patents Act 1977; Sabaf v MFI [2002] EWCA Civ 976

  • Kodak's conditional counterclaim for revocation of the UK designation was not fulfilled because the MLD did not accept jurisdiction to decide validity of the UK designation

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.353 RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Patentee must file an auxiliary request under R.30 RoP in order to defend dependent claims in revocation proceedings

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.30 RoP

  • Patent lacks novelty due to public prior use by Kodak's Sonora X / T41 plates before priority date

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art.54 EPC; Sec.12 German Patent Act

  • Patent lacks novelty over WO 2018/160379 A1 because features 1.3.6-1.3.8 are implicitly disclosed via Merka reworking

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art.54(3) EPC

  • Patent lacks inventive step starting from EP'452, EP'408 or JP'021 combined with EP'968, EP'541, JP'459, JP'090 or JP'264

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art.56 EPC

  • Kodak has a private prior use right based on possession of Sonora X plates before the priority date

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Sec.12 German Patent Act; Art.28 UPCA

  • UPC lacks jurisdiction over UK designation infringement because Art.34 UPCA confines jurisdiction to UPC territory

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art.34 UPCA; Art.24(3) UPCA

  • Injunction would be disproportionate given Kodak's investment in Sonora plates and public interest in market competition

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art.63 UPCA

  • Publication of infringement declaration on Kodak's website justified under Art.80 UPCA

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art.80 UPCA

  • Penalty clause for non-fulfilment of the monetary damages award (interim award)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art.63 UPCA