Short Summary
FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, in Germany and the United Kingdom. The Mannheim Local Division separated the proceedings regarding the UK part of the patent following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court assessed the validity of the UK part as a mere prerequisite for infringement with inter partes effect, found the patent invalid, and dismissed the infringement action with costs borne by FUJIFILM.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns European patent EP 3 476 616 B1, which relates to a lithographic printing plate precursor, a lithographic printing plate manufacturing method, and a printing method. The patent was filed on 31 May 2018, claiming priority from two Japanese patent applications of 31 August 2017 and 19 March 2018, with mention of grant published on 14 July 2021. The patent was still in force in Germany and the United Kingdom but had elapsed in all other designated EPC contracting member states before the UPCA's entry into force on 1 June 2023.
The Claimant, FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese manufacturer of lithographic plates and registered proprietor of the patent-in-suit, alleged that printing plates marketed by the Defendants under the product names 'SONORA X', 'SONORA XTRA-2' and 'SONORA XTRA-3' fell within the scope of claim 1 of the patent and constituted means relating to an essential element of claims 13 and 14. The Defendants—Kodak GmbH (German sales company), Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH (contract manufacturer), and Kodak Holding GmbH (parent company)—belong to a multinational group producing and distributing printing plates.
The Defendants challenged the validity of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and added matter extending beyond the application disclosure. They also filed a preliminary objection rejecting the international jurisdiction and competence of the UPC with regard to the United Kingdom.
The panel separated the proceedings regarding the UK by order of 2 April 2025, after the ECJ delivered its judgment in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22) on 25 February 2025. In its decision of 2 April 2025 on the main proceedings, the panel found the German part of the patent invalid and rejected FUJIFILM's request for a provisional injunction for the UK.
Following the BSH Hausgeräte precedent, the court held that while the UPC has jurisdiction to decide upon infringement of the UK part of a European patent, it does not have jurisdiction to revoke the validated UK national part with erga omnes effect. The court further held that a defendant in a UPC infringement action relating to the UK part may raise an invalidity defence without being obliged to file a national revocation action in the UK, with the UPC assessing validity as a mere prerequisite for infringement with inter partes effect only.
The court found no reason to stay the infringement proceeding or to make the decision conditional upon the validity of the UK part, and rejected the Defendants' request for a declaration of invalidity of the UK part as lacking legitimate interest since such declaratory relief would not be binding on UK national authorities.
On the merits, the court assessed the validity of the UK part of the patent as granted and as proposed in various auxiliary requests. The court found that the patent as granted lacked novelty over prior art, and that the auxiliary requests also failed to overcome the validity objections. The court rejected FUJIFILM's argument that the Defendants' validity challenges against dependent claims were inadmissible as new arguments, finding that the Defendants had sufficient opportunity to elaborate on these claims.
The court concluded that the infringement action regarding the UK part of the patent-in-suit as granted was unfounded and inadmissible with regard to the different limited substantive scopes proposed in the alternative. Rule 118.2 RoP was held inapplicable since the UPC's assessment of validity as a mere prerequisite with inter partes effect did not meet its requirements.
The final decision dismissed the infringement action and ordered FUJIFILM to bear the costs of the litigation. The value of the whole dispute had been set at EUR 15,000,000.
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 UPC Decision UPC-000538 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.