FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 30 January 2026)

Date	30 January 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_365/2023
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_365/2023
Parties	FUJIFILM Corporation v. Kodak GmbH. et. al.

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 Mannheim Local Division, sitting as a full panel, confirms the order of 20 January 2026 made by the judge-rapporteur, which imposed penalty payments on Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH and Kodak Holding GmbH for failing to comply with the decision of 2 April 2025 on the German part of FUJIFILM Corporation’s EP 3 511 174: EUR 1,720,000 in total for the period from 24 July 2025 to 20 January 2026, rising to EUR 25,000 per day for the future (paragraphs 74 to 77). The order clarifies the scope of the obligations to be complied with.

Question

May the judge-rapporteur alone impose penalty payments under Rule 354.4 RoP, and did the defendants comply with their information, recall and destruction obligations?

Decision

Rule 354.4 RoP does not reserve the decision to the panel: the reference to the panel of the division is purely organisational, so the judge-rapporteur may act under Rule 1.2(a) RoP, and the defendants’ request is treated as an application for panel review under Rule 333 RoP. On the merits, the information owed covers products manufactured in Germany and sold abroad (paragraph 44), the defendants must obtain data held by group companies (paragraphs 52 and 55), state quantities in square metres per delivery and per market (paragraphs 57 and 58), send recall letters to all customers (paragraphs 62 to 64) and have the information verified by a certified sworn auditor of their choice (paragraph 68). Non-compliance being deliberate, the amounts are proportionate (paragraph 79). Leave to appeal is granted so that the Court of Appeal may develop the still scarce case law (paragraph 82).

Key points for practice

Penalty payments may be imposed by the judge-rapporteur, subject to panel review under Rule 333 RoP.
An information obligation attached to a decision limited to Germany extends to foreign deliveries of products made in Germany and to data held within the group (paragraphs 44, 52 and 55).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts 34 and 67(1)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 1.2(a), 220.2, 333 and 354.4
Case law cited: Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_699/2025), Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 30 May 2025, UPC_CoA_845/2024 and UPC_CoA_50/2025.

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: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: 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

UPC_CFI_365/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantFUJIFILM Corporationnormalised name: Fujifilm Corporation37 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantKodak GmbH. et. alFollow 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

14 October 2025 Kodak v Fujifilm (CoA, 14 October 2025) Appeal RoP220.2 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
La condamnation de Kodak à payer 100 000 euros est annulée faute d’ordonnance d’astreinte préalable. Les astreintes pour l’avenir sont maintenues sans obligation de paiement immédiat, chaque partie supportant ses frais.
30 January 2026 FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 30 January 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_365/2023
2 June 2026 Kodak v Fujifilm (CoA, UPC_CoA_312/2025, 2 June 2026) Appeal RoP220.1 · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
La cour d'appel maintient le brevet sous forme limitée mais rejette l'action en contrefaçon : possession personnelle antérieure de Kodak Graphic en Allemagne, absence d'acte imputable aux défenderesses au Royaume-Uni.
3 August 2026 Kodak v Fujifilm (CoA, 3 August 2026) Appeal · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision
L’infirmation en appel de la décision de contrefaçon a un effet rétroactif qui prive de fondement l’astreinte de 1 720 000 EUR, les ordonnances d’astreinte sont annulées, les sommes versées restituées et Fujifilm supporte les frais, la valeur étant fixée à 1 000 000 EUR.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La formation confirme l’astreinte de 1 720 000 EUR prononcée par le juge-rapporteur contre les sociétés Kodak, portée à 25 000 EUR par jour, et précise l’étendue des obligations d’information, de rappel et de destruction.
Appeal: An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Kodak v Fujifilm (CoA, 14 October 2025) cited in this record
Kodak v Fujifilm (CoA, 3 August 2026) cites this decision

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) · Kodak v Fujifilm (CoA, 14 October 2025) · Kodak v Fujifilm (CoA, 21 August 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.