Opens in a new tab

Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, 20 November 2025)

Date20 November 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric Order
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_351/2024;UPC_CFI_595/2024
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_351/2024 · UPC_CFI_595/2024
PartiesCanon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Katun Germany GmbH a.o.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 20 November 2025, made in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_351/2024 and UPC_CFI_595/2024, the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on Canon’s request for a further exchange of written pleadings against Katun and General Plastic Industrial (EP 3 686 683). The EPO Opposition Division’s preliminary opinion and a summary of its reasoning were admitted, but a pleading on a new test purchase was refused and the written procedure was closed.

Question

Should the judge-rapporteur allow, under Rule 36, a further pleading on an EPO opinion and on a test purchase made after the reply?

Decision

A further exchange is assessed in light of fairness, efficiency and the right to be heard (paragraph 7). The EPO opinion was admitted, the defendants not objecting, together with its summary, which merely condenses it (paragraphs 8 and 9). The judge may take account of when the request is made (paragraph 10): Canon did not explain why the measurements from its October 2024 test purchase were not included in its reply of 16 December 2024 (paragraphs 11 to 13). Since Canon itself said that the new model numbers denote the same, structurally identical embodiment, they will in any event be covered by the operative part of the merits decision, so the pleading is unnecessary (paragraphs 14 and 15).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rule 36
Case law cited
Scandit v Hand Held Products, Court of Appeal, 1 November 2024, Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac, Düsseldorf Local Division, 4 March 2025, Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments, Mannheim Local Division, 14 May 2025, Fingon v Samsung, Mannheim Local Division, 5 June 2025

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CFI_351/2024 official number
  • UPC_CFI_595/2024 official number

Follow these proceedings

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 20 November 2025 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, 20 November 2025) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_351/2024, UPC_CFI_595/2024
  2. 10 December 2025 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, 10 December 2025) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_351/2024, UPC_CFI_595/2024

    Les parties doivent produire avant le 18 décembre 2025 les traductions anglaises de toutes leurs pièces et une estimation provisoire des frais. La modification de la demande et la valeur du litige sont réservées à la formation.

  3. 29 December 2025 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, 29 December 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_351/2024, UPC_CFI_595/2024

    Canon peut recourir à son propre interprète vers le japonais, à ses frais et avec l'équipement de la salle, mais la demande d'interprétation organisée par la juridiction et intégrée aux frais de l'instance est rejetée.

  4. 11 February 2026 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, 11 February 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_351/2024, UPC_CFI_595/2024

    La division locale de Düsseldorf rejette la demande reconventionnelle en nullité, retient la contrefaçon d'EP 3 686 683 par les bouteilles de toner Katun et ordonne injonction, rappel, destruction, provision de 100 000 euros et publication, y compris sur le site des défenderesses.

  5. 30 April 2026 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, UPC_CFI_351/2024, 30 April 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_351/2024

    La demande de confidentialité présentée après la décision au fond est rejetée : elle devait être faite pendant l'instance au fond, et la limitation d'usage demandée ne peut modifier le dispositif au stade de l'exécution.

  6. 30 April 2026 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, UPC_CFI_595/2024, 30 April 2026) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_595/2024

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
L'avis préliminaire de l'OEB et son résumé sont admis. L'écriture sur un nouvel achat test est refusée et la procédure écrite est close.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 686 683Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, 11 February 2026) · Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, UPC_CFI_351/2024, 30 Apri · Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Katun Germany (CFI, 29 December 2025) · Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v General Plastic Industrial (CFI, 12 June 2025		not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.