UPC_CFI_355/2023

LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE ORIGINAL PLATE, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE

InfringementMain Infringement ActionDusseldorf LDInfringementCase Closed

This case cites

Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
9.2	claim construction	Binding	SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: R. 9.2, 36 RoP - Rejection of further submissions
36	claim construction	Binding	Pursuant to R. 36 RoP, the judge-rapporteur may, on a reasoned request by a party, allow further written submissions to be exchanged within a period to be specified
109.1	language regime	Binding	SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Rule 109.1 RoP - Request for simultaneous interpretation
109.2	language regime	Binding	This general principle is further specified in R. 109.2 (1) RoP to the effect that the Judge-Rapporteur shall decide whether and to what extent simultaneous interpretation is appropriate
150	language regime	Binding	The costs of simultaneous interpretation in such a case shall be included in the costs of the proceedings, R. 150 RoP
109.2	language regime	Binding	a party may, at its own expense, engage a simultaneous interpreter (Rule 109.2 (2) RoP in conjunction with Rule 109.4 of the RoP)
109.5	language regime	Binding	the costs incurred shall not be regarded as costs of the proceedings within the meaning of the last sentence of Rule 109.5 RoP

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
69	claim construction	Binding	The terms used in a claim should normally be given their broadest technically sensible meaning in the context of the claim. Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol do not provide a justification for excluding what is literally covered by the terms of the claims by a narrowing claim construction
123	added matter	Binding	To comply with Art. 123(2) EPC, the subject-matter of an amended claim must be directly and unambiguously taught to the skilled person by the original application
51	language regime	Binding	Pursuant to Art. 51(2) UPCA, any division of the Court of First Instance shall, at the request of a party and to the extent appropriate, provide interpretation to assist that party in oral proceedings

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
UPC_CFI_363/2023	language regime	Persuasive	cf. CFI, LD Dusseldorf, UPC_CFI_363/2023, procedural order of 12 July 2024

Cited by

Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.

Cited in	Date	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
UPC_APP_24503/2025 Mannheim LD	Jul 18, 2025	jurisdiction	Binding	The defendant in an infringement action before the UPC, which relates to the UK part of a European bundle patent, is allowed to raise an invalidity defence without being obliged to file a national action for revocation in the UK... (following Local Division Dusseldorf, decision of 28 January 2025, UPC_CFI_355/2023).
UPC_APP_24543/2025 Mannheim LD	Jul 18, 2025	invalidity defence without revocation counterclaim for UK part – inter partes effect only	Persuasive	following Local Division Dusseldorf, decision of 28 January 2025, UPC_CFI_355/2023
UPC_APP_55795/2024 Milan LD	Apr 15, 2025	jurisdiction — non-UPC validated patents	Persuasive	see Local Division Düsseldorf, Decision dated 28 January.2025, Fujifilm v Kodak (UPC_CFI_355/2023).
ACT_17434/2024 Paris LD	May 23, 2025	jurisdiction	Binding	lectrolux, as has already 2 been stated by several divisions of the UPC concerning non-Contracting Member States (concerning either EU States or third States, UPC_CFI_355/2023, LD Düsseldorf, 28 January 2025; UPC_CFI 702/2024, LD Paris, 21 March, 20
UPC_CFI_189/2024 Paris CD	Sep 17, 2024	time extension appropriate only in justified exceptional cases	Persuasive	the power to extend the time limit should be used with caution and in justified exceptional cases (see LD Dusseldorf, order of 20 April 2024, UPC_CFI_355/2023