UPC APP 16648/2025
—·EP3511174: PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE ORIGINAL PLATE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE, AND PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING METHOD
- Case details
- Status—ActionProcedural applicationCategoryCase Management Orders
- Parties
- RespondentsReps: Kilian Seidel (Freshfields)
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Judges
- Rian Kalden · Presiding Judge and Rapporteur
- Ingeborg Simonsson · Legally Qualified Judge
- Patricia Rombach · Legally Qualified Judge
- Language
- —
- First decided
- Apr 17, 2025
- 2025-04-17Application Rop 223
Court of Appeal (Panel 2, Rian Kalden as rapporteur) dismissed Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, and Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH's application for suspensive effect of the Mannheim Local Division's infringement judgment of 2 April 2025 against Kodak. The Mannheim Local Division had found infringement of Fujifilm Corporation's EP 3 511 174, ordered a permanent injunction, damages, information disclosure, product destruction and recall, and EUR 300,000 interim costs. The Court of Appeal held that Kodak had not demonstrated manifest errors in the first-instance decision – the complaints about priority, prior use rights, right to be heard, proportionality of injunction, and cost allocation did not reach the threshold of manifest error on a summary assessment. The Court also addressed R. 171.2 RoP (uncontested facts), clarifying that an uncontested fact does not automatically lead to the legal consequence for which it was invoked.
Legal issues:Suspensive effect of appeal (R. 223 RoP / Art. 74(1) UPCA)Standard for manifest error in first-instance decisionUncontested facts (R. 171.2 RoP) – legal consequences not automaticValidity: priority, prior public use rightsProportionality of permanent injunction
- 885D5800A559F659D59A02761B5FE7BE_en.pdf2025-04-17EN