FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 13 May 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 13 May 2025, the Mannheim Local Division dismissed Kodak’s application for rectification of its decision of 2 April 2025 in FUJIFILM’s action for infringement of EP 3 476 616, with a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_359/2023). Kodak, the successful party, sought to have the value in dispute raised from EUR 15 million to EUR 30 million or, in the alternative, the ceiling on recoverable costs raised to at least EUR 1,000,000.

Question

Can Rule 353 be used to change the value in dispute set by the decision on the merits, or to add a costs ceiling on which the decision did not rule?

Decision

Rectification covers only clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious slips, meaning an incorrect or incomplete statement of what the court actually intended when it decided (reason 1, citing the Düsseldorf Local Division). The panel had intended to set EUR 15 million for the proceedings as a whole, infringement action and counterclaim included: the wording matched its intention. Nor had it intended to rule on the costs ceiling, so its absence was not a departure. Any failure to rule on a request is not a matter for Rule 353, and neither the UPCA nor the Rules require the merits decision to set that ceiling (reason 2).

Key points for practice

• Rule 353 cannot be used to revisit an assessment made by the court, such as the value in dispute, or to make good a failure to rule.
• Practical point: a party wanting separate values for the action and the counterclaim, or a specific costs ceiling, should ask for it expressly before the decision on the merits.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rule 353

Case law cited

Düsseldorf Local Division, 20 November 2024, UPC_CFI_368/2024

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.