ARTICLE
5 May 2025

LD Mannheim, 2 April 2025, Decision Of The Court Of First Instance, UPC_CFI_365/2023

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
Without prejudice to Art. 83 UPCA, Art. 3 (c) UPCA vests upon the UPC jurisdiction over any pre-existing European patent which has not yet lapsed...
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

The UPC has no jurisdiction over a European Patent with regard to those national parts of UPCA member states which have already lapsed before 1 June 2023. The same applies to national parts of non-UPCA-member states

Without prejudice to Art. 83 UPCA, Art. 3 (c) UPCA vests upon the UPC jurisdiction over any pre-existing European patent which has not yet lapsed at the date of the UPCA's entry into force, i.e., 1 June 2023. The provision has to be interpreted autonomously in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Thus, the court interpreted "any European patent" in Art. 3(c) UPCA as "any national part thereof" still in force.

This interpretation aligns with the UPCA's purpose of harmonizing future patent litigation and avoids retroactive effects on lapsed national parts.

Strict Requirements for Prior Use Defense

Where German Law is applicable upon a private prior use right according to Art. 28 UPCA, it is necessary that a firm and final decision to use the form of alleged prior use took place before the priority date. The defendant bears the burden of proving this decision and the possession and exercise of the invention before the priority date.

In the current case, the court rejected the defendant's prior use right defense due to insufficient evidence of a final business decision before the priority date.

Front-Loaded Procedure: Importance of presenting facts early

Defendants must present all prior use right facts and arguments in the Statement of Defense and Counterclaim for Revocation (R. 24(g), R. 25(1)(b) and (c) RoP).

Introducing new facts in later briefs undermines the fairness and efficiency of the front-loaded procedure.

Subsequent briefs are limited to responding to matters raised in the Reply (R. 29(c) and (d) RoP).

2. Division

LD Mannheim

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_365/2023

4. Type of proceedings

infringement action

5. Parties

Claimant: FUJIFILM Corporation
Defendant(s): Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 511 174 B1

7. Jurisdictions

UPC, Germany

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 3(c), Art. 28, Art. 25 to 28, Art. 63(1), Art. 68(1), Art. 67(1), Art. 64, Art. 82(2) UPCA

R. 24(g), R. 25(1)(b), (c), R. 29(c) and (d) RoP

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More