UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

ACT 579338/2023

—·EP3511174: PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE ORIGINAL PLATE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE, AND PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING METHOD

Case details
Status
—
Action
Infringement
Category
Main Infringement Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Tobias Hahn (Hoyng Rokh Monegier)
Respondents
Reps: Elena Hennecke (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer)
Division
Mannheim LD
Judges
Technology
Industrial Manufacturing · Printing Plates
Language
—
First decided
Jan 22, 2025
Last decision
Apr 2, 2025
Claims
At issueall
Infringedall
Notes: Mannheim LD found infringement of EP3511174 B1 by Kodak entities for Germany; counterclaim for revocation dismissed; specific claim numbers not enumerated in operative part visible in excerpts.
Decisions
  • 2025-04-02
    InfringedInjunction grantedInfringement meritsInfringement Action

    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.

    Legal issues:Patent infringementCounterclaim for revocation dismissedPrior use right (Art. 28 UPCA)UPC jurisdiction over lapsed national partsRecall and destruction of infringing products
    Damages: 300,000
Documents
  • 2F8B93F8F746B6310CD3F129DB2EC5B5_en.pdf2025-04-02EN
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

FUJIFILM Corporation sued Kodak GmbH and two affiliated Kodak entities before the Mannheim Local Division for infringement of EP 3 511 174 B1 relating to planographic printing plates. The court found direct infringement, granted an injunction, recall and destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and a EUR 300,000 interim cost award. Kodak's prior use right defense was rejected for failure to adequately plead and prove the necessary facts, and the revocation counterclaim was dismissed.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Direct infringement of EP 3 511 174 B1 by making, offering and placing on the market planographic printing plates in Germany

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCA

    Note: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: UPCA jurisdictional rules

    Note: Jurisdiction was limited accordingly as reflected in Headnote 1.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Prior use right defense under Art. 28 UPCA

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 28 UPCA; R. 24(g), R. 25(1)(b)(c), R. 29(c)(d) RoP; German law on prior use rights

    Reason: 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

    Respondent

    Reason: Dismissed entirely; no further details on the invalidity grounds visible in the excerpt.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
UPC 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

Browse other cases on this principle.