Fujifilm v Kodak (CoA, 17 April 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 17 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_312/2025 and UPC_CoA_325/2025), the Court of Appeal rejects the application by Kodak Holding, Kodak GmbH and Kodak Graphic Communications for suspensive effect of their appeal against the Mannheim Local Division’s decision of 2 April 2025. That decision found infringement of Fujifilm’s EP 3 511 174, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, granted a permanent injunction, recall and destruction, and an interim award of EUR 300,000 on costs, without making enforcement conditional on security. The order confirms that grounds going to the merits, however numerous, do not justify suspending enforcement.

Question

Should the appeal have suspensive effect where the appellant alleges errors on priority, on the prior use defence, on the proportionality of the remedies, on the right to be heard and on costs?

Decision

The application is admissible but unfounded (paragraph 9). An appeal has no suspensive effect save by way of exception, for instance where the decision is manifestly wrong or the appeal would become devoid of purpose (paragraph 10). The points raised are for the appeal on the merits. Kodak has not shown a manifest error, meaning a finding that is untenable on a summary assessment (paragraph 11). An uncontested fact under Rule 171.2 does not of itself entail the legal consequence claimed (paragraph 12).

Key points for practice

• A manifest error means a finding untenable on a summary assessment. A detailed critique of the first instance reasoning does not establish one (paragraph 11).
• Rule 171.2 relieves a party from proving an uncontested fact, but the court still decides what legal consequence follows (paragraph 12).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 74(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 171.2 and 223

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 19 June 2024, ICPillar v ARM (UPC_CoA_301/2024), Court of Appeal, 29 October 2024, Belkin v Philips (UPC_CoA_549/2024).

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.