UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 28/2026

Feb 16, 2026·EP3511174 · PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE ORIGINAL PLATE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE, AND PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING METHOD

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Optics
  • Mechanical engineering
    Textile and paper machines
Language
English
First decided
Aug 3, 2026
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Rian KaldenLocked
Judge Patricia RombachLocked
Judge Ingeborg SimonssonLocked
Judge Max TilmannLocked
Judge Lorenzo ParriniLocked

At the UPC: Kodak Group (52 cases)·Fujifilm Group (52 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 24 other proceedings

UPC CFI 3254/2026·UPC CFI 3265/2026·UPC CFI 3269/2026·UPC CFI 3173/2026·UPC CoA 130/2026 and 19 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2026

Decisions
  • 2026-08-03
    AppealPublic

    Summary: The Court of Appeal set aside the Mannheim Local Division's penalty orders of 20 and 30 January 2026, which had ordered Kodak to pay EUR 1,720,000. Because the underlying first-instance decision had itself been set aside on appeal with retroactive effect, the legal basis for the penalties fell away. The value of the enforcement proceedings was set at EUR 1,000,000, Fujifilm was ordered to bear Kodak's costs, and the penalty payments already made were ordered refunded to Kodak.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • retroactive effect of revocation of an order under Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.1 RoP
    • no legal basis for penalty payments once the enforced decision is revoked
    • value of enforcement proceedings determined by the claimant's interest (R. 370.6 RoP)
    • penalties forfeited are payable to the Court and do not represent the claimant's interest
    • unsuccessful party in enforcement proceedings (Art. 69(1) UPCA)
    • enforcement pending appeal is at the enforcing party's risk (R. 354.2 RoP)
Documents
Show all 54 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-08-04Not public
Publication of order2026-08-03Not public
Order2026-08-03Not public
Order2026-08-03Public
Receipt2026-07-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-13Not public
Submission Appellant2026-07-13Not public
Receipt2026-07-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-13Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-07-13Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Revocation of the first-instance decision under Art. 75(1) UPCA has retroactive effect, so the revoked order must be regarded as never having had legal effect and the penalty orders lose their legal basis

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 75(1) UPCA, R. 242.1 RoP

  • Penalty payments already made must be refunded once the enforced decision is set aside

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 354.2 RoP

  • The value of the enforcement proceedings remains determined by the claimant's interest in having the decision upheld, not by the amount of penalties forfeited, which are payable to the Court

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 370.6 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Kodak's conduct in the enforcement proceedings unnecessarily contributed to the costs and should be taken into account in the cost allocation

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(1) UPCA

  • The penalties remained payable for breaches alleged to have occurred before the revocation of the enforced decision

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 82 UPCA, R. 354 RoP