Opens in a new tab

FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, ORD_15980/2025, 2 April 2025)

Date2 April 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric Order
Registry referenceORD_15980/2025
PartiesFujifilm Corporation v. Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding 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_365/2023), the Mannheim Local Division separated, in FUJIFILM’s infringement action against three Kodak companies (EP 3 511 174), 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 22 January 2025, had not objected. Rules 302.1, 303.2 and 340.2 were applied by analogy.

Key points for practice

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

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

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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · 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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.