Kodak Holding, GmbH & others v. Fujifilm Corporation, UPC Court of Appeal, 17 April 2025, Case Nos. 312/2025 and 325/2025
On April 17, 2025, Judge Rian Kalden of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued an order rejecting Kodak’s application for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP. The case involves an infringement action brought by Fujifilm against Kodak concerning patent EP3511174 related to a planographic printing method.
The Court of First Instance, LD Mannheim, had ruled in favour of Fujifilm, ordering a permanent injunction and other penalties and damages against Kodak. Kodak appealed, seeking a stay, arguing that the initial decision was erroneous and violated their rights. However, the Court of Appeal found Kodak’s application unfounded, rejecting their request for a stay due to their failure to demonstrate manifest errors in the initial decision.
Uncontested Facts and Legal Consequences
The Court clarified that uncontested facts under Rule 171.2 RoP do not automatically result in the claimed legal consequences. Legal outcomes are based on judicial assessment rather than mere acceptance of facts, making it the Court’s responsibility to determine whether the facts justify such consequences.
Suspensive Effect of Appeals
According to Article 74(1) of the UPC Agreement, appeals do not have suspensive effect unless the Court decides otherwise. The Court emphasised that exceptions to this principle must be justified by the specific circumstances of the case. In this instance, there were no compelling reasons to alter the status quo during the appeal process. The merits of the case will be reviewed in the main appeal proceedings.
The order can be found here.
