FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 30 October 2024)

Date	30 October 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_54506/2024 · ORD_54796/2024
Parties	FUJIFILM Corporation

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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

By order of 30 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_355/2023, App_54506/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division (R. Thomas) refused FUJIFILM, claimant in the infringement action on EP 3 594 009 against three Kodak companies, leave to file a further written pleading in reply to the prior user right allegations set out in the rejoinder in the counterclaim for revocation. The order confirms that Rule 36 RoP does not reopen the written procedure shortly before the hearing where the request comes late.

Question

May a party obtain, under Rule 36 RoP, a further exchange of written pleadings to answer new facts raised in a rejoinder when the oral hearing has already been scheduled?

Decision

The Rules of Procedure in principle afford one opportunity to comment on prior use, although Rule 36 RoP allows a request for a further pleading. The judge weighs the reasons put forward against the effect on the proceedings, in particular the risk of delay. Filed on 3 October 2024, in reply to a rejoinder of 19 August, just before the deadline in the counterclaim, the request would delay a case set for hearing in December 2024. The right to be heard is not unduly restricted: the division will consider whether the new allegations should be disregarded under Rule 9.2 RoP and, if admitted, the claimant may respond in the interim procedure and at the latest at the oral hearing. The request is rejected.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a Rule 36 request should be made as soon as the pleading complained of is received, otherwise, the party should rather seek to have the new facts disregarded under Rule 9.2 RoP and respond in the interim procedure.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 9.2 and 36
Case law cited: No UPC decision is cited.

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.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantFUJIFILM Corporationnormalised name: Fujifilm Corporation37 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le juge rapporteur rejette la demande de FUJIFILM d'être autorisée à déposer un mémoire supplémentaire sur la possession personnelle antérieure, la requête tardive risquant de retarder l'audience fixée.
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

EP 3 594 009 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 594 009` Lithographic printing plate original plate, and method for producing lithographic printing plate recorded proprietor: Fujifilm Corp	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 9 other decision(s): Kodak Graphic Communications v FUJIFILM (CFI, 9 July 2025) · FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 28 January 2025) · FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, ORD_62349/2024, 29 November 2024) · FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, ORD_63627/2024, 29 November 2024) · FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 25 November 2024) · FUJIFILM v Kodak Graphic Communications (CFI, 2 August 2024) · FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 4 April 2024) · FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 27 March 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) 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.