UPC CoA 312/2025

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

• 2026-10-12
  AppealPublic

  Summary: The judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal extended by one week, until 23 October 2026, the Respondents' time limit to lodge written comments on the Applicant's request for rehearing. The Applicant had agreed to the extension and the order rests on R. 9.3(a) RoP.

  Show the legal issues (2)

  • extension of time limit under R. 9.3(a) RoP
  • request for rehearing
• 2026-08-31
  AppealPublic

  Summary: Court of Appeal order (Panel 1b, 31 Aug 2026) on Fujifilm's application for rehearing under Art. 81 UPCA against the CoA decision of 2 June 2026 (Fujifilm v Kodak, EP 3 511 174): the request that the rehearing application be granted suspensive effect is dismissed, because R. 252 RoP makes suspensive effect the exception and the applicant gave no specific reasons or prejudice. The rehearing application itself remains pending.

  Show the legal issues (2)

  • Art. 81 UPCA application for rehearing
  • R. 252 RoP: no suspensive effect of a rehearing application unless specifically justified
• 2026-06-02
  Appeal RoP220.1Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal set aside the first-instance decisions in all four appeals. In UPC_CoA_312/2025 and UPC_CoA_333/2025, Fujifilm's infringement requests were rejected, Fujifilm's unconditional request to amend claim 1 of the German designation was allowed (claim 1 revoked as granted and upheld in amended form), and Kodak's counterclaim for revocation was rejected. In UPC_CoA_880/2025 and UPC_CoA_882/2025, Fujifilm's infringement requests were dismissed, and the condition under which Kodak's counterclaim for revocation was filed was declared not fulfilled.

  Show the legal issues (8)

  • Claim construction of numerical values and manufacturing tolerances
  • Private prior use (Art. 28 UPCA) under German law
  • Front-loaded proceedings and submission of additional evidence (R. 29(c) RoP)
  • International jurisdiction of the UPC over non-UPC territory designations (Art. 34 UPCA)
  • Application of Brussels I bis Regulation (Art. 4) and forum non conveniens
  • Application of comity principles in cross-border patent disputes
  • Patent amendment in appeal proceedings
  • Unconditional request to amend claim 1
• 2025-08-21
  Application RoP262APublic

  Summary: Court of Appeal order on a confidentiality application (R. 262A RoP) filed by Kodak (appellants/defendants) in appeal proceedings concerning Fujifilm's infringement action. The order addresses confidentiality of trade secrets and commercially sensitive information in the grounds of appeal, confirming that the requirements of the Court's electronic case management system do not override the Rules of Procedure and the Court's case law. No substantive ruling on infringement or validity.

  Show the legal issues (2)

  • Confidentiality of trade secrets in appeal proceedings (R. 262A RoP)
  • Relationship between CMS requirements and Rules of Procedure
• 2025-04-17
  Application RoP 223Public

  Summary: 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.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Suspensive effect of appeal (R. 223 RoP / Art. 74(1) UPCA)
  • Standard for manifest error in first-instance decision
  • Uncontested facts (R. 171.2 RoP) – legal consequences not automatic
  • Validity: priority, prior public use rights
  • Proportionality of permanent injunction