In its order of 17 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_312/2025 et al.), the Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) dismissed an application by Kodak for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP, following an infringement decision in favour of Fujifilm by the Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_365/2023). Further, the CoA clarified the consequences of a fact remaining uncontested.
Kodak had appealed the Local Division’s judgment, which granted broad remedies to Fujifilm for infringement of EP 3 511 174. These included a permanent injunction, product recall and destruction, an award of damages, and costs. The court did not require Fujifilm to post security for enforcement. Kodak’s counterclaim for revocation was dismissed in full.
Kodak sought suspensive effect of the appeal, citing alleged manifest errors by the Local Division, including incorrect treatment of priority, disregard of asserted prior user rights, and violations of its right to be heard.
The Court of Appeal, presided by Judge Rian Kalden, reaffirmed that the default rule under Art. 74(1) UPCA is that an appeal does not have suspensive effect. Departures from this principle are permitted only in exceptional circumstances - such as manifest errors in the decision under appeal or if enforcement would render the appeal meaningless (cf. UPC_CoA_301/2024 – ICPillar v ARM).
Kodak failed to meet this threshold. The Court emphasized that:
“Kodak has failed to demonstrate that the Court of First Instance’s findings and considerations constitute manifest errors.”
Importantly, the Court clarified the scope of Rule 171.2 RoP, rejecting Kodak’s assertion that an uncontested factual statement mandates a corresponding legal consequence:
“Even if there is an uncontested fact, this does not imply that the legal consequence for which this fact was submitted automatically follows.”
The Court underlined that it is for the court to assess whether the advanced facts support the legal conclusion, reinforcing the court’s autonomous role in applying the law.
