Fujifilm v Kodak (CFI, 17 July 2025)
| Date | 17 July 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Case number(s) | App_28969/2025;ORD_29090/2025 |
| Registry reference | App_28969/2025 · ORD_29090/2025 |
| Parties | Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH |
| Language | English |
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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 17 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_365/2023, App_28969/2025), the Mannheim Local Division (Presiding Judge Tochtermann as judge rapporteur, Judges Böttcher and Agergaard, and Technically Qualified Judge Wismeth), sitting as a full panel, rejected the request by Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications and Kodak Holding for protection under Rule 262A RoP of the information they must provide to Fujifilm in enforcement of the decision on the merits of 2 April 2025 concerning EP 3 511 174. The costs of that application are borne by the defendants.
Question
May a party ordered to provide information obtain, at the enforcement stage, a confidentiality regime it did not seek during the proceedings on the merits?
Decision
No. Kodak should have sought specific confidentiality arrangements during the proceedings on the merits, although it was aware of the issue and had filed several Rule 262A RoP applications. The decision of 2 April 2025 already bars use of the information for purposes other than those it lists (paragraph 138), a limitation inherent in any enforcement based on the operative part, and provides for further protection only where there is an indication of a specific risk of misuse, which Kodak did not show. The division also rejected the proposed time limit, as the decision remains enforceable well beyond five years (s. 197 BGB) and Fujifilm may need the information later.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: confidentiality of information to be provided under an order must be dealt with during the proceedings on the merits, at the enforcement stage, a specific risk of misuse must be shown.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 72
- Rules of Procedure
- Rule 262A
- Other provisions
- German Civil Code (BGB), s. 197(1) no. 3
- Case law cited
- Fujifilm v Kodak, 2 April 2025, Mannheim Local Division (paragraph 138)
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: Unitary patent, Local and central divisions (UPC).
Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Four Questions That Decide a UPC Market Entry, 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
- English from the language of proceedings
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
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.
Parties
- claimantKodak Holding GmbH29 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantKodak GmbH29 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantKodak Graphic Communications GmbH29 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande de Kodak de protéger, au stade de l'exécution, les informations dues à Fujifilm est rejetée : elle aurait dû être présentée pendant l'instance au fond et aucun risque concret d'abus n'est établi.
- 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 3 511 174mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Fujifilm v Kodak (CFI, 18 July 2025) cited in this record
- FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, ORD_598590/2023, 2 April 2025) cited in this record
- FUJIFILM v Kodak (CFI, 23 July 2025) cites this decision
- Fujifilm v Kodak (CFI, 16 July 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 511 174Planographic 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 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 |
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.