UPC Lifts Injunction in Fujifilm v. Kodak Printing Technology Case

On 2 June 2026, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a key ruling (Case No. UPC_CoA_312/2025) in the dispute between Fujifilm and Kodak concerning lithographic printing plate technology, setting aside the cross-border injunction previous issued by the Mannheim Local Division against Kodak covering Germany and the United Kingdom. As a result, Fujifilm loses its entitlement to provisional injunctive relief in both jurisdictions, although the validity of the patent in suit, European Patent EP 3 511 174, has not been overturned.

The dispute centres on whether Kodak’s lithographic printing plate technology infringes Fujifilm’s EP 3 511 174. In 2025, the Mannheim Local Division found infringement at first instance and, based on the UPC’s centralised jurisdiction over European patents, extended the scope of the injunction not only to acts in Germany but also to the United Kingdom (in respect of the UK designation of the patent). That decision was seen as a paradigmatic exercise of the UPC’s “long-arm jurisdiction” – i.e., even after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the UPC may assume jurisdiction over infringement remedies relating to designations in non-UPC member states by virtue of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and the Brussels I bis Regulation.

The Appeal Court set aside the injunction primarily because of flaws in the infringement findings:

As regards Germany: Kodak successfully invoked a prior user right under German patent law, demonstrating that it had already possessed and commercially worked the technology before the filing date of the patent in suit, thereby satisfying the requirements for an exemption from liability.
As regards the United Kingdom: Fujifilm failed to prove that the three affiliated Kodak defendants engaged in joint infringement, nor did it sufficiently substantiate that infringing acts had actually occurred in the UK. Consequently, the UK part of the injunction lacked factual support.
Notably, the Appeal Court upheld the validity of EP 3 511 174; Kodak’s invalidity defence was not accepted.

The ruling does not negate the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction potential, but rather delineates its boundaries:

The UPC may assume jurisdiction over infringement remedies relating to patent designations in non-UPC member states (such as the UK) based on the defendant’s domicile (e.g., Kodak’s German subsidiary). However, such jurisdiction is conditional on strict proof of infringement.
The UPC has no jurisdiction over validity disputes concerning patents in non-UPC countries (those must be decided by national patent offices or courts). Its cross-border injunction is therefore a form of remedial jurisdiction, not jurisdiction to determine validity.