FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 30 April 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In FUJIFILM’s infringement action on EP 3 476 616 against three Kodak companies (UPC_CFI_359/2023), the judge rapporteur Böttcher (Mannheim Local Division) allowed only in part the replacement of three of the nine members of the claimant’s confidentiality club: two replacements were admitted, the third refused, and the access of the replaced members was terminated. The order shows that the membership of a confidentiality club cannot be changed freely to suit a party’s internal organisation.

Question

May a party replace members of its confidentiality club set up under Rule 262A on the ground that they have been assigned to other tasks?

Decision

Only in part. The court must take all circumstances into account and weigh the parties’ interests (paragraph 2). FUJIFILM chose to reassign the three members without ensuring that they could continue to work on the case, even in a secondary role, and without explaining why this was impossible (paragraph 3). Two replacements already had access to the confidential information in the parallel proceedings UPC_CFI_365/2023, so admitting them did not unduly affect Kodak’s interests. The third, from a department handling the business side of the dispute, was not a member of that club and the need for that person’s assistance had not been shown.

Key points for practice

• A request to replace confidentiality club members must be justified. An internal reorganisation alone is not enough.
• Practical point: a replacement is more readily accepted where the new member already has access to the same information in parallel proceedings between the same parties.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rule 262A

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.