UPC_CoA_312/2025 – Kodak v Fujifilm

Court
Court of Appeal
Date
Outcome
Granted
Sector
Other
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

Extensions Facts 1. Fujifilm asked for a one week extension for filing written comments on Kodak’s request for a rehearing. 2. Kodak agreed to the request. The JR The JR granted the request, noting that Fujifilm had to prepare for an oral hearing between the same parties and that the extension would have no influence on the speed of the proceedings. Comment 1. As is well known by now, I am against extensions for reasons other than (truly) exceptional circumstances, and I do not think there are such circumstances in this case. 2. However, in this case, the period for filing a response is not a period prescribed by a Rule but one set by the Court (R. 255 RoP). What Fujifilm should have done is request the Court, immediately after receiving the application for a rehearing, to set a convenient date for its response, giving the same reasons that have now led to the one week extension. If that was not possible because it received the application and the date for a response at the same time, then the request and the decision to grant it are reasonable and acceptable.

Full Decision Text

ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 12 October 2026 APPLICANT (RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL AND CLAIMANT BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE) Fujifilm Corporation, 26-30, Nishiazabu 2-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-8620, Japan represented by Christof Augenstein, Kather Augenstein Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB RESPONDENTS (APPELLANTS BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL AND DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE) 1) Kodak GmbH, Kesselstraße 19, 70327 Stuttgart, Germany 2) Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kesselstraße 19, 70327 Stuttgart, Germany 3) Kodak Holding GmbH, Kesselstraße 19, 70327 Stuttgart, Germany all represented by Kilian Seidel, Freshfields PartGmbB PATENT AT ISSUE EP 3 511 174 PANEL Panel 1b Klaus Grabinski, presiding judge and president of the Court of Appeal Paolo Catallozzi, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Peter Blok, legally qualified judge Reference no: UPC-COA-312/2025 2 DECIDING JUDGE This order has been issued by the judge-rapporteur LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English DECISION UNDER REVIEW □ Decision of the Court of Appeal of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated 2 June 2026. Number attributed by the Court of Appeal: UPC_CoA_312/2025. SUMMARY OF FACTS 1. By application of 8 October 2026, the Respondents requested that the time period for lodging their written comments, due to expire on 16 October 2026, be extended by one week, until 23 October 2026. The Respondents stated that the Applicant had agreed to the requested extension and submitted the relevant email correspondence in support of that statement. GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER 2. The Respondents’ request for extension of the time period for lodging written comments on Applicant’s request for rehearing is admissible and well-founded. 3. Pursuant to R. 9.3(a) RoP, the Court may, on a reasoned request by a party, extend a time period referred to in the Rules of Procedure or imposed by the Court. 4. In exercising its discretion under that provision, the Court must take account of all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, of the consequences of the requested extension for the efficient and fair conduct of the proceedings and for the other party’s rights of defence. 5. In the present case, the requested extension is limited to one week. The Court also takes into account that, until its postponement on 7 October 2026, the Respondents’ representatives had been required to prepare for an oral hearing scheduled for 13 October 2026 in infringement proceedings between the same parties before the 3 Düsseldorf Regional Court. The postponement occurred only one day before the present application was lodged. 6. The Applicant has agreed to the requested extension, as confirmed by the correspondence submitted as Exhibit FBD-FV 1. In view of the extension’s limited duration, granting it will neither disrupt the procedural timetable nor adversely affect the efficient conduct of the proceedings or place the Applicant at any procedural disadvantage. 7. In those circumstances, and having regard also to the reasons set out in the application, the requested extension is warranted and should be granted. ORDER The time period for the Respondents to lodge their written comments on the application for rehearing is extended until 23 October 2026. Issued on 12 October 2026. Paolo Catallozzi, legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur

Key Holdings

  • A one-week extension for filing written comments on a request for a rehearing may be granted by the judge-rapporteur where both parties agree and the extension does not affect the speed of the proceedings.
  • Preparation for an upcoming oral hearing between the same parties can be considered a valid factor in granting an extension of a court-set deadline.
  • For time periods set by the Court rather than prescribed by a Rule (such as under Rule 255 RoP), parties should ideally request the Court to set a convenient date upon receiving the application.

Tags

  • Extensions
  • Rehearing
  • Judge-Rapporteur

Related Cases

View original decision