Fujifilm v Kodak (CFI, 30 January 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 30 January 2025 preparing the oral hearing (UPC_CFI_359/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division set out the panel’s preliminary views in FUJIFILM’s infringement action against Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications and Kodak Holding over European patent EP 3 476 616, in which a counterclaim for revocation is pending. The only point settled is the value of the dispute, raised on a preliminary basis to at least EUR 15 million, against the EUR 5 million declared by the claimant. The order is chiefly useful for the questions it puts to the parties, in particular on the injunction sought for the United Kingdom and on the law applicable to damages for acts before and after 1 June 2023.

Question

Does the value of the dispute declared by the claimant reflect what is at stake in its requests, and how should the requests concerning the United Kingdom and damages be handled?

Decision

The declared value appears largely underestimated in the light of request C.IV alone, the order referring to a EUR 10 million interim award on damages in respect of the patent. It is therefore set at no less than EUR 15 million on a preliminary basis (section II). The panel is inclined to separate the request for an injunction covering the United Kingdom and to stay it until the Court of Justice rules in Case C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte (section I.1). It asks the parties whether national law or the UPCA governs acts before 1 June 2023, in the light of Art. 28 of the Vienna Convention, and whether Art. 67 UPCA supports the request for information (sections I.3 and I.5). The parties must file any amended requests and a provisional estimate of costs by 5 February 2025 (Rule 104(k) RoP).

Key points for practice

• The panel may, while preparing the hearing, correct of its own motion a value of the dispute that is understated in view of the sums claimed.
• Requests concerning the United Kingdom may be separated pending the Court of Justice’s ruling in BSH Hausgeräte.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 67

Rules of Procedure

Rules 104(k), 114 and 125

European Patent Convention

Art. 54(3)

Other provisions

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 28

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.