Short Summary
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns enforcement proceedings following a main decision of 2 April 2025 finding infringement of EP 3 511 174. The defendants (Kodak entities) sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A RoP for information they were required to disclose during enforcement. The court rejected the request, holding that the defendants should have raised confidentiality in the main proceedings, that the main decision already restricted use of the information to the stated purposes, and that no specific risk of misuse was demonstrated.
Detailed Summary
This case arises from enforcement proceedings before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, following a main decision of 2 April 2025 in which FUJIFILM Corporation (the Claimant) prevailed against Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH (the Defendants). After FUJIFILM initiated enforcement proceedings, the Defendants were required to disclose information pursuant to the main decision. The Defendants then filed a request dated 18 June 2025 seeking confidentiality protection for that information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure (RoP).
The Defendants argued that Rule 262A RoP applied—either directly or by analogy—to information exchanged between the parties in enforcement proceedings. They contended that FUJIFILM's interest in effective enforcement would not be impaired, that three persons would be sufficient to review the information, that the request aimed at preventing competition-restricting use of the information, and that limitations were justified to prevent FUJIFILM from using the information indefinitely after termination of the proceedings.
FUJIFILM opposed the request, arguing it was inadmissible because the Defendants had not submitted the allegedly confidential information. FUJIFILM further contended that Rule 262A RoP applied only to pleadings exchanged within court proceedings and not to information rendered outside them. It argued that confidentiality should have been addressed in the main proceedings and that the present request was filed for tactical reasons. FUJIFILM also submitted that the Defendants had not substantiated the confidential character of the information and that the application was overly broad.
The court rejected the Defendants' request for three principal reasons. First, the Defendants should have raised the need for special confidentiality provisions during the main proceedings, particularly since they were aware of confidentiality issues and had already filed multiple Rule 262A requests during those proceedings. Second, the main decision of 2 April 2025 (paragraph 138) had already clarified that the information rendered 'must not be used for any other purpose than the purposes mentioned above,' which inherently restricts use of the information and prevents misuse such as antitrust violations. Third, while the main decision acknowledged that further protection could be available in case of a specific risk of misuse, the Defendants had failed to submit any such facts.
The court additionally rejected the Defendants' argument that the information could only be used until termination of proceedings or for five years under Article 72 UPCA. The court noted that in Germany, a final court decision may be enforced for thirty years under § 197(1) No. 3 of the German Civil Code (BGB), and that even after the five-year period, FUJIFILM might need to refer to the rendered information, for example, if products reappeared on the market and fraudulent activity was suspected.
The court therefore ordered that the Defendants' request for protection of confidential information of 18 June 2025 be rejected, and that the Defendants bear the costs of the proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Avient Protective Materials B.V.vsXingi Technology Co., Ltd et al
Avient Protective Materials B.V. initiated a patent infringement action against the Xingi Group, comprising two Chinese companies, alleging infringement of European Patent No. 2 791 402 relating to Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) multifilament yarn. The claimant asserted infringement of three groups of claims concerning multifilament yarn, composite articles, and ballistic-resistant panels against the defendants' 'Xingi UD Fibers', 'Xingi UD Fabrics', and 'Xingi UD Panels' products. The order was issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Local Division The Hague under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure.
Daedalus Prime LLCvsXiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Hamburg Local Division that had denied Daedalus Prime LLC's two US attorneys access to confidential information disclosed by Xiaomi in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 792 100. The Court held that Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require the person granted access to be an employee of a party or a representative within the meaning of Art. 48 UPCA, and that the US attorneys' technical expertise and familiarity with the patent justified granting them full access. The orders of the judge-rapporteur of 30 July 2024 and 3 September 2024 were amended to extend access to the two US attorneys.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbHvsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The plaintiff Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought leave under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file additional submissions after learning that the defendants were also offering the 'Barryvox S' (in addition to the previously accused 'Barryvox S2') with voice control functionality. The court denied the request, finding no basis to permit further submissions, noting that the plaintiff is already protected by confirmed provisional measures orders regarding the 'Barryvox S2' and retains remedies for any potential violations.
Headwater Research LLCvsSamsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an Interim Conference in proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 391 947. The order addresses various procedural matters including the value of the claim and counterclaim, parallel proceedings, formal pleading deficiencies, late-filed documents, and arrangements for the upcoming oral hearing. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date of 20 May 2025 and set the value of the infringement claim at €2 million and the counterclaim for revocation at €3 million.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft, Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.vsRespondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 05.06.2025 KLÄGERIN PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG, Flachsmarktstraße 8-28, 32825 Blomberg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Rechtsanwalt Hannes Jacobsen, CBH Rechtsanwälte, Ismaninger Stra
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.