FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 4 April 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 4 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_355/2023, ACT_578607/2023), presiding judge Thomas, acting as judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division, extended until 28 May 2024 the time for FUJIFILM Corporation to reply to the statement of defence of Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH and Kodak Holding GmbH, to answer their counterclaims for revocation of EP 3 594 009 B1 and to apply to amend the patent. The order links the extension of time to the access restriction resulting from a confidentiality order.

Question

Does the initial restriction of access to the unredacted pleading to representatives only (Rule 262A RoP) justify extending the time for the reply and the defence to the counterclaims (Rule 9.3(a) RoP)?

Decision

Yes. Extensions under Rule 9.3(a) RoP are to be granted with caution and only in justified exceptional cases. Such a case regularly arises where access to the unredacted pleading was initially limited to representatives: the party’s employees with relevant knowledge must be able to contribute, and the two-month period under Rule 29(a) RoP must be fully available to develop a joint strategy. The right to be heard also requires the patentee to reconcile its non-infringement, validity and amendment arguments. Here, the confidentiality order of 27 March 2024 gives access to three employees immediately and to six others only after the appeal period plus one week. The extension does not unduly disadvantage the defendants, who sought the protection, nor unduly delay the proceedings. The division notes a differing view taken by the Hamburg Local Division.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party whose employees could not access confidential material in good time may, in principle on request, obtain an extension restoring the full Rule 29(a) RoP period.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3(a), 29(a), 30 and 262A

Case law cited

Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce, Düsseldorf Local Division, 20 January 2024, Avago v Tesla, Hamburg Local Division, 28 November 2023 (differing view), FUJIFILM v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 27 March 2024

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.