Decisions
| Date | Case | Division | Action | Motion | Outcome | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-01-28 | UPC_CFI_355/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Infringement Action | — | Revoked | Decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dated 28 January 2025 in infringement action by FUJIFILM Corporation against Kodak entities regarding EP 3 594 009 B1 (printing plate technology). The court rejected Kodak's preliminary objection, then upheld the counterclaim for revocation, revoking EP 3 594 009 B1 in all Contracting Member States where it has effect, on grounds including added matter (Art. 123(2) EPC) and obviousness over prior art. FUJIFILM's application to amend the patent was dismissed. As a consequence, the infringement action was also dismissed. The court confirmed jurisdiction over the UK part of the patent despite the revocation counterclaim concerning the German part, applying long-arm jurisdiction principles. Costs were ordered against the claimant. Value in dispute: EUR 15,000,000 each for infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. |
| 2024-11-29 | UPC_CFI_355/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order rejecting and disregarding Defendants' (Kodak entities) further written submissions filed on 28 November 2024 because no reasoned request was made and no leave was granted by the judge-rapporteur for further submissions pursuant to Rule 36 RoP. |
| 2024-11-29 | UPC_CFI_355/2023 | Dusseldorf LD | Generic application | — | Procedural only | Procedural order granting the Claimant's request for simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral hearing scheduled for 17-18 December 2024, issued pursuant to Rule 109.1 RoP. |
| 2024-11-25 | UPC_APP_61143/2024 | Dusseldorf LD | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | The Düsseldorf Local Division full panel dismissed FUJIFILM's application for review of a judge-rapporteur's order that had denied FUJIFILM's application to submit an additional written pleading in response to new factual allegations in the defendants' rejoinder regarding a prior use defence. |