Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (Panel 1b) on 12 October 2026 in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Applicant before the Court of Appeal was Fujifilm Corporation, represented by Christof Augenstein of Kather Augenstein Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB. The Respondents were three Kodak entities—Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH—all based in Stuttgart, Germany, and represented by Kilian Seidel of Freshfields PartGmbB. The proceedings were conducted in English, and the reference number was UPC-COA-312/2025.
The substantive matter before the Court was a procedural application. By application dated 8 October 2026, the Respondents requested that the time period for lodging their written comments on the Applicant's request for rehearing, which was due to expire on 16 October 2026, be extended by one week until 23 October 2026. The Respondents stated that the Applicant had agreed to the requested extension and submitted the relevant email correspondence in support.
The Court, acting through the judge-rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi, found the request admissible and well-founded. It relied on Rule 9.3(a) of the Rules of Procedure, which permits the Court to extend a time period on a reasoned request by a party. The Court noted that in exercising its discretion under this provision, it must consider all circumstances of the case, particularly the consequences of the extension for the efficient and fair conduct of the proceedings and for the other party's rights of defence.
In its reasoning, the Court emphasized several factors. First, the requested extension was limited to just one week. Second, the Respondents' representatives had been required to prepare for an oral hearing scheduled for 13 October 2026 in related infringement proceedings between the same parties before the Düsseldorf Regional Court, and that hearing was postponed on 7 October 2026—only one day before the present extension application was lodged. Third, the Applicant had expressly agreed to the requested extension, as confirmed by the correspondence submitted as Exhibit FBD-FV 1. The Court concluded that, given the limited duration of the extension and the Applicant's consent, granting the request would neither disrupt the procedural timetable nor adversely affect the efficient conduct of the proceedings or place the Applicant at any procedural disadvantage.
Accordingly, the Court ordered that the time period for the Respondents to lodge their written comments on the application for rehearing be extended until 23 October 2026. The order was signed digitally by judge-rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi on 12 October 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH vs Fujifilm Corporation 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.
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.
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 sought to revive its appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 evidence-production applications, which had been filed late. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited (the decisions not being titled 'order', the R. 190-Applications not appearing in the requests section, and incomplete appeal information) did not constitute exceptional circumstances excusing the missed 15-day appeal deadline under R. 224.1(b) RoP.
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.