UPC Court of Appeal
UPC_CoA_312/2025
APL_16141/2025
UPC_CoA_333/2025
APL_17535/2025
App_35051/2025
App_35052/2025

ORDER
of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 21 August 2025
concerning an Application pursuant to R. 262A RoP

HEADNOTES:
- The requirements of the Court’s electronic case management system do not override the Rules of Procedure and the Court’s case law.

KEYWORDS:
- Application pursuant to 262A RoP

APPELLANTS (AND DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)
1. Kodak GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany
2. Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany
3. Kodak Holding GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany
(hereinafter jointly referred to as “Kodak”)
all represented by Kilian Seidel, and other attorneys at law of the law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater PartG mbB, Munich, Germany

RESPONDENT (AND CLAIMANT BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)
Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan
(hereinafter referred to as “Fujifilm”)
represented by: Dr. Christof Augenstein, and other attorneys at law of the law firm Kather Augenstein Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Düsseldorf, Germany

PATENT AT ISSUE
EP 3 511 174

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
English

DECIDING JUDGE
This order was issued by Rian Kalden, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur

IMPUGNED DECISIONS OR ORDERS OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in the main proceedings UPC_CFI_365/2023,
- ORD_598590/2023 in ACT_579338/2023 (infringement action),
- ORD_69138/2024 in CC_8809/2024 (counterclaim for revocation)
both issued by the Mannheim Local Division on 2 April 2025.

POINT AT ISSUE
Confidentiality

SUMMARY OF FACTS (INSOFAR AS RELEVANT)
1. Fujifilm lodged infringement actions before the Mannheim Local Division. In response, Kodak lodged counterclaims for revocation.
2. In UPC_CFI_365/2023 the Mannheim Local Division by its decision of 2 April 2025 in both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation held the patent (EP 3 511 174) to be valid and infringed in Germany (the only Contracting Member State where EP 3 511 174 was still in force).
3. Kodak has appealed this decision for both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CoA_312/2025 APL_16141/2025 and UPC_CoA_333/2025 APL_17535/2025 respectively).
4. In the proceedings at first instance, the Mannheim Local Division issued several confidentiality orders.
5. In its Application pursuant to R. 262A RoP, Kodak stated that the grounds of appeal contain trade secrets and commercially sensitive information which are already subject to confidentiality measures ordered by the Local Division Mannheim and that it believes that this information is already protected by these orders. It also stated that the legal representative of Fujifilm has agreed to extend the confidentiality measures ordered by the Local Division Mannheim to the appeal proceedings.
6. Kodak nevertheless lodged Applications pursuant to R. 262A RoP, requesting the Court of Appeal to order a confidentiality regime, because under the electronic case management system used by the Court, a party that has submitted a redacted brief is required to submit an application under R. 262A RoP.

GROUNDS
7. A non-appealed order by the CFI pursuant to R.262A RoP that restricts access to certain information or evidence to specific persons, unless otherwise stated in the order, continues to apply after the termination of the proceedings and therefore applies also to the appeal proceedings (see UCP Court of Appeal, 28 March 2024, UPC_CoA_101/2024, App_12137/2024, Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics, para 9).
8. When a confidentiality order of the CFI refers to certain paragraphs or ways in which the information is presented, that does not mean that the order must be understood to be restricted thereto. Rather it must be understood that it is the information as such that is covered by such an order, regardless of the manner it is presented (UCP Court of Appeal, 17 January 2025, UPC_CoA_768/2024, App_68595/2024 Insulet v EOFlow))
9. The confidentiality orders issued by the Mannheim Local Division all provided that the ordered confidentiality obligations set out therein continue to apply even after the conclusion of the court proceedings. These wordings make it clear that that the prohibition also encompasses appeal proceedings such as the present one.
10. Kodak has confirmed that the information to be protected in the appeal proceedings is not different from the information already protected in the CFI orders.
11. It follows that the requests to protect the information pursuant to R.262A RoP by Kodak are superfluous and there is therefore no need for an order.
12. The requirements of the Court’s electronic case management system do not override the Rules of Procedure and the Court’s case law.

ORDER
The requests for confidentiality are dismissed without being tried in substance.
The Registry of the Court of Appeal is instructed to grant access to the partially redacted version of
the Statement of grounds of appeal uploaded to the CMS only to persons named in the orders of the Mannheim Local Division issued on
• 15 April 2024 (App_17200/2024 UPC_CFI_365/2023; App_17201/2024; App_17202/2024; App_22540/2024),
• 16 October 2024 (App_53989/2024; App_53987/2024), and
• 28 January 2025 (App_68671/2025).

Issued on 21 August 2025