FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 3 June 2025)

Date	3 June 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Notice of intention to enforce (RoP118.8)
Registry reference	App_20512/2025 · ORD_20743/2025
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

The presiding judge of the Mannheim Local Division, acting as judge rapporteur, rejected FUJIFILM’s request for a warning to Kodak that, failing compliance within three weeks with the information orders in the decision of 2 April 2025 (EP 3 511 174), a penalty of up to EUR 30,000 per day would be due. The order shows that a prior warning cannot be used to settle what the merits decision deliberately left open.

Question

May a patentee obtain, before any penalty application, a warning setting a time for compliance and a penalty amount that the merits decision did not provide for?

Decision

In paragraph 140 of the merits decision the panel had chosen to set neither a time limit for compliance nor a penalty amount. All related questions (timing, amount and the circumstances of any non-compliance) are reserved for a later application to impose penalties. The warning request of 29 April 2025 was rejected.

Key points for practice

Where the merits decision sets no time limit and no penalty, the patentee must proceed by a penalty application upon non-compliance, not by a request for a warning.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rule 354

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: Unitary patent, Local and central divisions (UPC).

Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Four Questions That Decide a UPC Market Entry, Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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 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: Notice of intention to enforce (RoP118.8)
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande d'avertissement est rejetée, la décision au fond ayant délibérément renvoyé délai et montant d'astreinte à une éventuelle demande ultérieure de condamnation.
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 3 511 174 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 3 511 174` Planographic printing plate original plate, method for manufacturing planographic printing plate, and planographic printing method recorded proprietor: Fujifilm Corp	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 18 other decision(s): Fujifilm v Kodak (CFI, 18 July 2025) · Fujifilm v Kodak Graphic Communications (CFI, 2 April 2025) · FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, ORD_598590/2023, 2 April 2025) · Kodak v Fujifilm (CoA, 31 August 2026) · Kodak v Fujifilm (CoA, 3 August 2026) · Fujifilm v Kodak (CoA, UPC_CoA_474/2025, 13 July 2026) · FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 30 January 2026) · Kodak v Fujifilm (CoA, 14 October 2025)	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.