2025-04-02 - LD Mannheim - Fujifilm v. Kodak - UPC_CFI_365/2023

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_365/2023
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Art:
Order
Parteien:
Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH

Kernaussage: The Mannheim LD found infringement (direct and indirect) of EP 3 511 174 by Kodak's SONORA XTRA-3 printing plates and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation in its entirety.

2025-04-02 - LD Mannheim - Fujifilm v. Kodak - UPC_CFI_365/2023
🗂️Nur Fallakte
Eine Entscheidung, mehrere Registereinträge

Das Gericht hat diese Verfahren zusammen entschieden und dasselbe Dokument in jedem davon eingestellt. Jeder Eintrag unten ist ein eigener vollwertiger Registereintrag.

🏛️Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division• Order
📅2025-04-02
🔢UPC_CFI_365/2023
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Fujifilm Corporation
Christof AUGENSTEIN
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Kodak GmbH
Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
Kodak Holding GmbH
Kilian SEIDEL
⚖️Infringement
🌐English

notable
The Mannheim LD found infringement (direct and indirect) of EP 3 511 174 by Kodak's SONORA XTRA-3 printing plates and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation in its entirety. The court held that the UPC has no jurisdiction over national EP parts that lapsed before 1 June 2023, restricting the action to Germany. On validity, novelty was upheld over two prior art documents, inventive step was maintained (no motivation to focus on specific examples from EP'452's table of 30), and added matter was denied. Both public prior use (implicit confidentiality regime) and private prior use under Art. 28 UPCA / § 12 German PatG (no firm and final business decision before priority date) were rejected. The court applied strict front-loading requirements, barring new facts in the rejoinder.

Nichtigkeitsgründe

Art. 138 EPC
3 Gründe
Novelty
Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
Patent survived (this ground)
“Novelty attacks over WO 379 and EP 452 both rejected.”
Inventive Step
Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
Patent survived (this ground)
“No motivation to focus on examples 3, 11, 12 from 30 examples.”
Added Matter
Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
Patent survived (this ground)
“Feature 1.6 directly and unambiguously disclosed.”
Feststellungen aus Sicht des Patentinhabers bezeichnet. Quelle: KI-Klassifikation (AI)

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren