UPC CFI 359/2023
Oct 11, 2023·EP3476616 · PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE ORIGINAL PLATE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE, AND PRINTING METHOD
Action number: ACT 578818/2023
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (No infringement)ActionInfringementCategoryMain infringement action
- Parties
- Claimants
- Fujifilm CorporationOperating co.
Representatives- Christof Augenstein-Kather Augenstein
- Tobias Hahn-Hoyng Rokh Monegier
Respondents- Kodak GmbHOperating co.
- Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHOperating co.
- Kodak Holding GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Elena Hennecke-Freshfields
- Division
- Mannheim LD
- Technology
- InstrumentsOptics
- Mechanical engineeringTextile and paper machines
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Apr 2, 2025
| Infringement found | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Mannheim LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Peter Tochtermann | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Dirk Böttcher | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Peter Agergaard | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Erwin Wismeth | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Fujifilm Group (52 cases)·Kodak Group (52 cases)
This dispute contains 13 other proceedings
UPC CoA 158/2026·UPC CFI 3255/2026·UPC CFI 3266/2026·UPC CFI 3270/2026·UPC CoA 881/2025 and 8 more
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Mannheim LD·2023
- 2025-04-02
Summary: The Mannheim Local Division issued a procedural order separating proceedings with respect to the UK national part of EP 3 476 616 in the Fujifilm v. Kodak infringement action, pending the ECJ's ruling in case C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) on jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Separation of proceedings (R. 302.1, R. 303.2, R. 340.2 RoP)
- UPC jurisdiction over UK national patent part
- Brussels Ia Regulation (Art. 71a, 71b)
- ECJ referral C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte)
- 2025-01-30Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: Pre-trial order of Mannheim Local Division in FUJIFILM v Kodak (EP 3 476 616) setting out preliminary views and questions from the judge-rapporteur in advance of the oral hearing. The order identifies key issues on claim construction, novelty and inventive step (prior art: WO 379, US 952, EP 452, JP 021, EP 408) and directs the parties' attention to specific technical questions requiring focused argument at the hearing.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Preparation of oral hearing – preliminary views under R. 101 RoP
- Claim construction
- Novelty and inventive step – reworking of prior art examples
- —revocation counterclaim
Summary: A. The European patent EP 3 476 616 B1 is entirely revoked in the territory of Germany. B. The application to amend the patent is dismissed. C. The infringement action is dismissed. E. The Claimant is ordered to pay the Defendants the sum of EUR 300.000 as an interim award on the legal costs and other expenses.
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Communication | 2026-10-20 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-10-20 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-20 | Not public |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-10-20 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-10-16 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-10-12 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-12 | Not public |
| Fee | 2026-10-12 | Not public |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-10-12 | Not public |
| Application document Claimant | 2026-10-12 | Not public |
FUJIFILM Corporation sued Kodak GmbH and related entities in the Mannheim Local Division for infringement of EP 3 476 616, a lithographic printing plate patent. The court found the patent entirely invalid for Germany due to lack of novelty/inventive step, dismissed FUJIFILM's application to amend (for non-compliance with Art. 76(1) UPCA and R. 30 RoP), and dismissed the infringement action, ordering FUJIFILM to pay EUR 300,000 in interim legal costs.
Patent lacks novelty/inventive step over prior art in Germany
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65(3) UPCA; Art. 54, 56 EPCNote: Kodak successfully argued that EP 3 476 616 was entirely invalid for the German territory, leading to full revocation and dismissal of the infringement action.
Application to amend patent must comply strictly with R. 30 RoP and Art. 76(1) UPCA
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 76(1) UPCA; R. 30 RoPNote: The court held that FUJIFILM's application to amend was procedurally defective and dismissed it; reliance on a dependent claim as a new independent claim requires a proper R. 30 application.
Patent is valid and infringed by Kodak's lithographic printing plate products
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65(3) UPCAReason: The court found the patent entirely invalid due to lack of novelty/inventive step in Germany; with the patent revoked, the infringement action could not succeed.
Patent amendment application should be allowed to limit claims and preserve validity
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 76(1) UPCA; R. 30 RoPReason: The application to amend was dismissed because FUJIFILM did not submit a clear and comprehensive application complying with Art. 76(1) UPCA and R. 30 RoP; merely relying on a dependent claim as a new independent claim does not satisfy the requirement.
Provisional injunction should be granted for the UK part of the patent pending further proceedings
ClaimantReason: The court found no necessity to grant a provisional injunction for the UK national part given that the German part of the patent was invalid, balancing the parties' interests accordingly.
The excerpt does not detail specific claim construction analysis beyond noting that the patent relates to a lithographic printing plate precursor, manufacturing method, and printing method. The invalidity findings were based on lack of novelty/inventive step but the specific prior art references are not named in the available excerpt.