Developing Story
Kodak v. FujiFilm – UPC Long-Arm Jurisdiction Ruling (2026)
The UPC Court of Appeal has ruled that Kodak does not infringe FujiFilm's EP 3 511 174, allowing Kodak to continue selling printing plates across Germany and the UK. The ruling, consolidated across four case IDs, adds significant precedent to the developing UPC body of law on long-arm jurisdiction and noninfringement standards. Freshfields represented Kodak in the successful defense.
Importance: 72%Confidence: 90%Mentions: 1Updated: June 25, 2026
## Kodak v. FujiFilm – UPC Long-Arm Jurisdiction Ruling (2026)
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Court of Appeal has ruled that Kodak does not infringe FujiFilm's EP 3 511 174, allowing Kodak to continue manufacturing and selling its planographic and lithographic printing plates in Germany and the UK (JUVE Patent, June 4). The decision was issued by the second panel of the Court of Appeal under presiding judge Rian Kalden, across four consolidated case IDs: UPC_CoA_312/2025, UPC_CoA_880/2025, UPC_CoA_333/2025, and UPC_CoA_882/2025.
### Legal Significance
**Long-arm jurisdiction at the UPC**: The case is notable for its framing as a "long-arm jurisdiction" dispute, meaning FujiFilm sought to use UPC jurisdiction to reach conduct occurring in or with effects across multiple European jurisdictions simultaneously. The Court of Appeal's resolution of this jurisdictional question adds to the developing UPC jurisprudence on cross-border reach.
**Noninfringement finding**: The substantive holding—that Kodak's printing plates do not infringe the asserted patent—provides commercial certainty for Kodak's European manufacturing and sales operations.
**Representation**: Kodak was represented by Freshfields, continuing the firm's active UPC litigation practice (existing wiki: Perkins Coie – London Patent Market Entry).
### Context Within UPC Jurisprudence
- The UPC Court of Appeal is rapidly building a body of precedent on preliminary injunctions, jurisdiction, and infringement standards (existing wiki: UPC Court of Appeal – Preliminary Injunction Jurisprudence).
- This case joins Nokia FRAND litigation withdrawals (existing wiki), Samsung v. ZTE FRAND jurisdiction (existing wiki), Dyson v. Dreame (existing wiki), and Merz Fampyra PI victory (existing wiki) as significant CoA decisions.
- The four consolidated case IDs suggest parallel proceedings across divisions, which is itself a procedural feature of UPC practice worth monitoring.
### Commercial Implications
- Kodak's printing plate business—a legacy industrial product—gains European market freedom to operate.
- FujiFilm's patent enforcement strategy in Europe has suffered a setback; it may consider appeal to the full Court of Appeal bench or seek further patent prosecution.
- Law firms advising clients on European patent enforcement strategies should note the Court's approach to jurisdictional overreach arguments.
### Watch Items
- Whether FujiFilm pursues further challenge or files continuation patents
- Judge Kalden's panel future rulings as UPC precedent-setters
- Freshfields' emerging UPC litigation practice profile