FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, ORD_15984/2025, 2 April 2025)

Date	2 April 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic Order
Registry reference	ORD_15984/2025
Parties	Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH

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 an order of 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_359/2023), the Mannheim Local Division separated, in FUJIFILM’s infringement action against three Kodak companies (EP 3 476 616), the requests concerning the UK part of the patent, which will be dealt with in separate proceedings. The CJEU’s BSH Hausgeräte judgment (C-339/22), given on 25 February 2025 after the oral hearing, concerns the rules of international jurisdiction under Regulation 1215/2012 that the UPC must apply. The order allows the national parts that are ready for decision to be decided without delay.

Question

Must the division hold back its decision on the whole European patent where a CJEU ruling on jurisdiction over the UK part is handed down after the oral hearing?

Decision

No. Basing the decision on that ruling without giving the parties an opportunity to comment would raise right-to-be-heard concerns, and a second hearing on the whole case would be disproportionate, since the panel could decide the other parts whatever the ruling’s outcome. Where only some national parts are ready for decision, the decision should not as a rule be withheld: delay would postpone enforcement of the claimant’s potential rights, including after a successful appeal, and the defendants have a legitimate interest in a prompt decision on their counterclaim for revocation. The parties, told of this possibility by an order of 30 January 2025, had not objected. Rules 302.1, 303.2 and 340.2 were applied by analogy.

Key points for practice

Where a jurisdictional question concerns one state only, the division may decide the national parts that are ready and reserve the others, avoiding delay in the enforcement of any injunction.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 302.1, 303.2 and 340.2
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012: Arts 71a and 71b(1)
Case law cited: CJEU, 25 February 2025, BSH Hausgeräte, C-339/22

Related decisions

FUJIFILM v Kodak, Mannheim Local Division, 18 July 2025, decision on the separated UK part

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

defendantKodak Holding GmbH29 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantKodak GmbH29 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantKodak Graphic Communications GmbH29 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
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: Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Les demandes relatives à la partie britannique du brevet sont disjointes et seront jugées dans une procédure distincte.
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 3 476 616 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 18 July 2025) cited in this record

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 3 476 616`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 18 July 2025) · Fujifilm v Kodak (CFI, 2 April 2025) · Fujifilm v Kodak (CoA, UPC_CoA_474/2025, 13 July 2026) · FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 13 May 2025) · FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 30 April 2025) · Fujifilm v Kodak (CFI, 30 January 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked 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.