On 2 June 2026, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued its final ruling in the Fujifilm v Kodak printing plate patent case, dismissing Fujifilm’s claims and setting aside the German and UK injunctions previously granted against Kodak by the Mannheim Regional Division, as well as the fine of €1.72 million (approximately RMB 13.5257 million).

Previously, in April 2025, the Mannheim Regional Division had ruled that Fujifilm’s EP3511174 patent (relating to lithographic printing plates and methods of manufacture) was valid in Germany and had been infringed by Kodak, and in July of the same year, it had additionally granted a UK injunction via ‘long-arm jurisdiction’. In January 2026, the Regional Court imposed a contempt of court fine of €1.72 million on Kodak for breaching the injunction.

Following a hearing, the Court of Appeal found that the first-instance judgment contained fundamental defects in both its German and UK sections and therefore set it aside in its entirety.

With regard to the German patent claims, the Court of Appeal found that prior to the priority date of the patent in question (30 March 2018), Kodak had already manufactured and commercially prepared for sale its Sonora X plates, which fell within the scope of the patent claims and met the conditions for “private prior use” as stipulated in Section 12 of the German Patent Act. Kodak’s subsequently improved Sonora Xtra-3 plates did not achieve any additional technical advantages and fell within the scope of a reasonable extension of the prior user right. Consequently, Kodak did not infringe the German patent designation, and the injunction granted at first instance should be set aside.

With regard to the UK patent designation, the Court of Appeal first confirmed that the UPC had jurisdiction (based on the defendant’s domicile in Germany, Article 4 of the Brussels I bis Regulation), but applied English law in the substantive proceedings. The court found that ownership of the products in question had always belonged to Kodak UK, whilst the German Kodak entity was merely a contract manufacturer with no legal or economic interest, and therefore did not constitute an ‘import’ under UK patent law. Furthermore, Fujifilm failed to prove that the Kodak entity had been “jointly involved in the design” or had actual knowledge of the patent infringement; consequently, the claim of joint infringement was also dismissed.

Additionally, the Court of Appeal held that the first-instance court had committed fundamental errors in its factual findings regarding Kodak’s breach of the injunction and in its application of the law; it therefore set aside the fine of €1.72 million.

This ruling marks the first time the UPC Court of Appeal has issued a negative decision regarding cross-member-state injunctions, particularly those directed at the non-member state of the UK and the associated fines. The Court of Appeal ultimately ordered Fujifilm to amend its patent claim 1 (adjusting the upper limit of the aperture ratio from 90% to 10%-50%) and dismissed Kodak’s counterclaim for patent revocation.

Scan the QR code to access the full text of the judgment