UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CoA 881/2025

Sep 18, 2025·EP3476616 +1 more: PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE ORIGINAL PLATE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PLANOGRAPHIC PRINTING PLATE, AND PRINTING METHOD

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Christof Augenstein (Kather Augenstein, Düsseldorf, Germany)
Respondents
Reps: Kilian Seidel (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Munich, Germany)
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Language
English
First decided
Jul 13, 2026
Claims
At issue1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11
Maintained1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11
Amended1
Infringed1, 10, 11
Notes: Claim 1 was centrally limited during appeal proceedings under Art.105b(2) EPC (EPO limitation proceedings published 19 November 2025), incorporating features of original claims 1, 2 and 7 (lightness L* 70-100, steepness a45 <=30%, surface area ΔS 20-40%). Process claims 13 and 14 were renumbered to claims 10 and 11. The Court held all Sonora plates (X, Xtra-2, Xtra-3) infringe claim 1 (direct) and claims 10 and 11 (indirect). No need to examine validity of dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7 since claim 1 was held valid.
Decisions
  • 2026-07-13
    InfringedInjunction grantedAppeal decisionAppeal RoP220.1

    The Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance decision (German designation) and found EP 3 476 616 valid and infringed by Kodak's Sonora X, Sonora Xtra-2 and Sonora Xtra-3 lithographic printing plate precursors; Kodak's counterclaim for revocation was dismissed and a full injunction, damages, recall and destruction were ordered for Germany. For the UK designation (UPC_CoA_881/2025 and UPC_CoA_873/2025), Fujifilm's appeal was dismissed because Fujifilm failed to establish an infringing act by any Kodak defendant in the UK; Kodak's conditional counterclaim for revocation of the UK designation was declared unfulfilled and therefore not decided.

    Legal issues:Admissibility of defence of dependent claims without auxiliary request under R.30 RoPPatentee's obligations under R.29A RoP to identify dependent claim combinationsNovelty over public prior use (Sonora X / T41 plates before priority date of 31 August 2017)Novelty over WO 2018/160379 A1 (Art. 54(3) EPC) and US 4 566 952 AInventive step starting from EP 2 878 452 A1, EP 2 594 408 A1 or JP 2015-189021 A in combination with EP 2 839 968, EP 1 614 541 A2, JP H08-144090 AScope of centrally limited claim 1 under Art. 105b(2) EPC during appeal proceedingsDirect infringement of claim 1 by Sonora X, Sonora Xtra-2 and Sonora Xtra-3 plates (Germany)Indirect infringement of method claims 10 and 11Private prior use defence under Sec. 12 German Patent Act / Art. 28 UPCAUPC jurisdiction over UK designation of EP under Art. 4 Brussels Regulation I / BSH v Electrolux (CJEU C-339/22)Conditions for non-EU/LC European patent infringement actions and appropriate exercise of jurisdictionProportionality of injunction and publication on website (Art. 80 UPCA)Penalty clauses for enforceable monetary obligations (Headnote 7)Costs allocation and interim award under R. 150.2 RoP
    Damages: 300,000
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.issueOrder.order2026-07-24Not public
Order2026-07-24Public
Receipt2026-07-22Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-22Not public
Application Respondent2026-07-22Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-07-20Not public
Order2026-07-20Public
Receipt2026-07-17Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-17Not public
Application Appellant2026-07-17Not public
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-07-13Not public
Decision2026-07-13Public
Decision2026-07-13Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-07-13Not public
Decision2026-07-13Not public
action.communication.general2026-07-10Not public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseClose2026-04-01Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-03-31Not public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseOpen2026-03-24Not public
action.phaseChange.interimPhaseClose2026-03-24Not public
action.communication.general2026-03-24Not public
Receipt2026-03-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-23Not public
Document Respondent2026-03-23Not public
action.communication.general2026-03-18Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-18Not public
Order2026-03-18Public
Receipt2026-03-17Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-17Not public
Other document Appellant2026-03-17Not public
action.phaseChange.interimPhaseOpen2026-02-26Not public
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseClose2026-02-26Not public
action.communication.general2026-02-25Not public
Receipt2026-02-25Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-25Not public
Statement of Response2026-02-25Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-25Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-25Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-25Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-25Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-25Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-25Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-25Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-25Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-02-25Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-10Not public
Other document Respondent2025-12-10Not public
Receipt2025-12-10Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-10Not public
Other document Respondent2025-12-10Not public
Receipt2025-12-10Not public
action.issueOrder.order2025-12-04Not public
Order2025-12-04Public
Cover sheet2025-11-26Not public
Other document Respondent2025-11-26Not public
Other document Respondent2025-11-26Not public
Other document Respondent2025-11-26Not public
Receipt2025-11-26Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-18Not public
Other document Appellant2025-11-18Not public
Other document Appellant2025-11-18Not public
Statement of the Grounds of Appeal2025-11-18Not public
Receipt2025-11-18Not public
action.summons.oralHearing2025-10-21Not public
Summons2025-10-21Public
action.issueOrder.order2025-10-21Not public
Order2025-10-21Public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2025-10-21Not public
Other document Appellant2025-10-21Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-09-18Not public
25-09-18_-_EP_616_-_Appeal_-_Kodak_v_Fuji_UK2025-09-18Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Patentee may defend dependent claims (including combinations encompassed by the granted claims) without filing an auxiliary request under R.30 RoP; R.30 RoP applies only to amendments deviating from the granted wording

    ClaimantLegal basis: R.29A RoP; R.30 RoP; Art.65(3) UPCA; Art.138(2) EPC

  • All three Sonora plate variants (Sonora X, Xtra-2, Xtra-3) directly infringe claim 1 of EP 3 476 616 as centrally limited; measurements in Analysis Report K15 are reliable and the manufacturing process is irrelevant to claim construction

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art.25 UPCA; claim 1 of EP 3 476 616

  • Patent is novel: Kodak's T41/Sonora X delivery to Laserline on 12 October 2017 was after the first priority date and was a test delivery under implied confidentiality; WO'379 does not disclose features 1.3.6-1.3.8; US'952 does not disclose features 1.3.7-1.3.8

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art.54 EPC

  • Patent has inventive step: starting documents EP'452, EP'408 and JP'021 do not disclose lightness L*, steepness a45 or surface area ΔS and there is no pointer to consult EP'968, EP'541, JP'459, JP'090 or JP'264 to arrive at those features

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art.56 EPC

  • Kodak cannot rely on a private prior use right because it had not taken a firm and final decision to commercialise the Sonora X plate in its final composition before the priority date of 31 August 2017

    ClaimantLegal basis: Sec.12 German Patent Act; Art.28 UPCA

  • UPC has jurisdiction over infringement of the UK designation pursuant to Art.4 Brussels Regulation I (defendant domiciled in Germany) as confirmed by BSH v Electrolux (CJEU C-339/22)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art.4 Brussels Regulation I; Art.71a-71b Brussels Regulation I; BSH v Electrolux (C-339/22)

  • Fujifilm failed to prove that any Kodak defendant carried out an infringing act of importing into the UK; title to attacked embodiments was retained by Kodak Ltd (UK) not Kodak Graphic, so Kodak Graphic was not importing

    RespondentLegal basis: s.60(1)(a) Patents Act 1977; Sabaf v MFI [2002] EWCA Civ 976

  • Kodak's conditional counterclaim for revocation of the UK designation was not fulfilled because the MLD did not accept jurisdiction to decide validity of the UK designation

    RespondentLegal basis: R.353 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Patentee must file an auxiliary request under R.30 RoP in order to defend dependent claims in revocation proceedings

    RespondentLegal basis: R.30 RoP

  • Patent lacks novelty due to public prior use by Kodak's Sonora X / T41 plates before priority date

    RespondentLegal basis: Art.54 EPC; Sec.12 German Patent Act

  • Patent lacks novelty over WO 2018/160379 A1 because features 1.3.6-1.3.8 are implicitly disclosed via Merka reworking

    RespondentLegal basis: Art.54(3) EPC

  • Patent lacks inventive step starting from EP'452, EP'408 or JP'021 combined with EP'968, EP'541, JP'459, JP'090 or JP'264

    RespondentLegal basis: Art.56 EPC

  • Kodak has a private prior use right based on possession of Sonora X plates before the priority date

    RespondentLegal basis: Sec.12 German Patent Act; Art.28 UPCA

  • UPC lacks jurisdiction over UK designation infringement because Art.34 UPCA confines jurisdiction to UPC territory

    RespondentLegal basis: Art.34 UPCA; Art.24(3) UPCA

  • Injunction would be disproportionate given Kodak's investment in Sonora plates and public interest in market competition

    RespondentLegal basis: Art.63 UPCA

  • Publication of infringement declaration on Kodak's website justified under Art.80 UPCA

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art.80 UPCA

  • Penalty clause for non-fulfilment of the monetary damages award (interim award)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art.63 UPCA