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
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.