UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 861/2025

Sep 11, 2025·EP4082804 Unitary patent · ORIGINAL PLATE FOR LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE, AND 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
Jul 17, 2026
EPO Opposition
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: Fujifilm Group (52 cases)·Kodak Group (52 cases)

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

This dispute contains 2 other proceedings

UPC CFI 747/2025·UPC CFI 724/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-07-17
    AppealPublic

    Summary: The Court of Appeal set aside the costs decision of the Central Division Paris in the revocation action UPC_CFI_724/2024, ruling that Kodak (not Fujifilm) must bear the costs of proceedings at first instance and on appeal. The CoA held that Fujifilm had surrendered the patent immediately at the beginning of the proceedings and had not given rise to the revocation action, so Kodak unnecessarily initiated the proceedings.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Cost allocation after patent surrender during revocation proceedings
    • Art. 69(1) and Art. 69(2) UPCA — which party gave rise to the proceedings
    • R. 360 RoP — disposal of revocation action after surrender
    • Whether revocation action was necessary given pending EPO opposition by group company
    • Timing of surrender relative to deadline for defence to revocation
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-07-17Not public
Publication of order2026-07-17Not public
Decision2026-07-17Not public
Final Order2026-07-17Public
Oral procedure closed2026-03-02Not public
Oral procedure opened2026-03-02Not public
Written procedure closed2026-03-02Not public
Communication2026-02-27Not public
Receipt2026-02-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-13Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-13Not public
Statement of Response2026-02-13Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-20Not public
Other document Respondent2025-11-20Not public
Receipt2025-11-20Not public
Communication2025-11-17Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-16Not public
Other document Respondent2025-11-16Not public
Receipt2025-11-16Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-13Not public
Statement of the Grounds of Appeal2025-11-13Not public
Other document Appellant2025-11-13Not public
Receipt2025-11-13Not public
Order2025-11-06Not public
Order2025-11-06Public
Cover sheet2025-10-31Not public
Other document Appellant2025-10-31Not public
Receipt2025-10-31Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-31Not public
Other document Respondent2025-10-31Not public
Receipt2025-10-31Not public
Order2025-10-24Not public
Order2025-10-24Public
Panel-Appointment2025-09-17Not public
Receipt2025-09-17Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-09-17Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-09-17Not public
2025-09-11 Statement of Appeal Fuji to CoA - EP 804_signed2025-09-17Not public
2025-09-11 Statement of Appeal Fuji to CoA - EP 804_correctionformalcheck_signed2025-09-17Not public
Exhibit KAP 12025-09-17Not public
Formal-checks_Request-for-correction2025-09-12Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-09-11Not public
Exhibit KAP 12025-09-11Not public
2025-09-11 Statement of Appeal Fuji to CoA - EP 804_signed2025-09-11Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Fujifilm surrendered the patent immediately at the beginning of the proceedings (within the time limit for filing the defence to revocation) and therefore did not give rise to the revocation action

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69(1) UPCA; R. 360 RoP

  • Kodak was not entitled to assume that initiating a revocation action was necessary to obtain revocation of the patent, given that an EPO opposition by a group company was already pending

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69(1) UPCA
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Fujifilm, by requesting a time extension to defend the patent before the EPO, gave Kodak cause to file the revocation action

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(1) UPCA

  • Kodak was under no obligation to await the outcome of EPO opposition proceedings initiated by another group company before filing a revocation action, so it should not bear the costs

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69(1) UPCA