2025-01-28 - LD Düsseldorf - Fujifilm v. Kodak - UPC_CFI_355/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_355/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Proceeding Decision
- Parteien:
- FUJIFILM Corporation v. Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
Kernaussage: The Düsseldorf LD revoked EP '009 (lithographic printing plate precursor) in a landmark decision addressing jurisdiction over non-UPC states, claim construction, and implicit disclosure.
2025-01-28 - LD Düsseldorf - Fujifilm
v.
Kodak - UPC_CFI_355/2023
landmark
The Düsseldorf LD revoked EP '009 (lithographic printing plate precursor) in a landmark decision addressing jurisdiction over non-UPC states, claim construction, and implicit disclosure. The court held that the UPC has jurisdiction over UK patent infringement where defendants are domiciled in a Contracting Member State, as Art. 34 UPCA does not limit international jurisdiction. On the merits, claims as granted were insufficiently disclosed because the HOMO difference feature encompassed embodiments with electron-accepting initiators for which the patent provided no enabling disclosure. All three auxiliary requests failed: AR1 lacked novelty over Art. 54(3) documents because HOMO values are inherent physicochemical properties of chemical compounds implicitly disclosed by their structure, AR2 and AR3 contravened Art. 123(2) EPC. The court established that terms in claims should be given their broadest technically sensible meaning and that narrowing interpretation requires convincing case-specific reasons.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“AR1 lacked novelty over FBD-T20/T21/T22 (Art. 54(3) EPC) — HOMO difference is inherent property of same compounds used in prior art.”
Added Matter
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“AR2 and AR3 contravened Art. 123(2) EPC — no basis for combining 'two or more kinds' with specific diphenyliodonium salt compounds.”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“Claims as granted insufficiently disclosed under Art. 138(1)(b) EPC — HOMO difference feature encompassed embodiments with electron-accepting initiators for which the patent provided no enabling disclosure.”