FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 25 November 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 25 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_355/2023, ACT_578607/2023, App_61143/2024), the panel of the Düsseldorf Local Division (presided over by R. Thomas), in FUJIFILM Corporation’s infringement action on EP 3 594 009 B1 against Kodak GmbH and two other group companies, dismissed the request for review (Rule 333) of the judge-rapporteur’s order of 30 October 2024, which had refused FUJIFILM a further written pleading in reply to Kodak’s new allegations on prior use in its rejoinder of 19 August 2024.

Question

Should the panel set aside the judge-rapporteur’s refusal to allow a further pleading under Rule 36 where the claimant can still respond at the oral hearing?

Decision

The request is admissible under Rules 333.2 and 333.3, and the panel may decide at once in favour of the other party without hearing it (paragraph 1). The judge-rapporteur applied the correct standard: the risk of delay outweighs the claimant’s interest in presenting its arguments in writing (paragraph 2(a)). No relevant argument justifies a different outcome: parties bear the risk of delay from the time they file, and a preference for written submissions or a wish to set out arguments in detail is not enough (paragraph 2(b)).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: in Düsseldorf, new facts raised in the rejoinder are as a rule answered at the oral hearing, a further pleading under Rule 36 gives way to the risk of delay.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 36, 333.2 and 333.3

Case law cited

No UPC decision is cited.

Related decisions

• FUJIFILM v Kodak, 29 November 2024, order disregarding an unauthorised brief of the defendants (Rule 36).

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.