2025-04-02 - LD Mannheim - Fujifilm v. Kodak - UPC_CFI_359/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_359/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Proceeding Decision
- Parteien:
- Fujifilm v. Kodak
Kernaussage: 1.
2025-04-02 - LD Mannheim - Fujifilm
v.
Kodak - UPC_CFI_359/2023
1. Art. 76 (1) UPCA contains a strict application principle. Accordingly, a patent proprietor, who wishes to defend its patent in a limited version, has to submit a clear and comprehensive Application to amend the patent.
2. R. 30 RoP also calls for an Application to amend the patent, if the patent proprietor wishes to rely on a dependent claim as granted as a new independent claim.
With this decision, the Mannheim Local Division revoked a patent in its entirety, dismissing the application to amend the patent and, consequently, the infringement action.
The decision is 64 pages long and mainly deals with validity (novelty, inventive step, added matter - also laying down the legal framework) but also procedural issues, such as jurisdiction to national parts before the UPC's entry into force and an inadmissible defence of dependent claims.
Stichwörter
Art. 65 (3) UPCA; requirement for a request in accordance with R. 30 RoP in the case of a limited defence of the patent-in-dispute
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Novelty attacks over WO 379 and US 952 rejected. Reworking by inventor knowledge insufficient.”
Inventive Step
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Lack of inventive step from three starting points. Missing lightness feature obvious from common knowledge.”
Added Matter
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“Obvious error in claim 6 correctable from specification context.”