In this article, we examine the reasoning behind the decision and explore what this could mean for businesses with operations in the UK.

Fujifilm v Kodak

Fujifilm v Kodak is part of a long running dispute, concerning lithographic printing plates. Fujifilm (claimant) was suing Kodak (defendant) for alleged infringement of EP3511174 B1, relating to a planographic printing plate. EP3511174 B1 is in force in both Germany and the UK.

One key point of issue which arose during the case was the question of jurisdiction. That is, Kodak denied that the UPC had jurisdiction to decide infringement of the UK part of the European Patent, as the UK is not a member state of the UPC.

While, initially, this may appear logical, it was ultimately decided that the UPC does in fact have jurisdiction to decide upon the infringement action as far as it relates to acts infringing the UK national part of the patent-in-suit.

To understand how this decision was reached, it is necessary to look back to early 2025. In BSH v Electrolux (handed down in February 2025) the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decided that a court of a member state of the European Union in which a defendant is domiciled has jurisdiction to rule on an infringement action based on a patent granted or validated in a non-EU member state (subject to certain restrictions).

Notably, even if invalidity of the patent was raised as a defence during the infringement proceedings, this would not shift the jurisdiction to the national court. However, any decision on invalidity made during the infringement proceedings would have inter partes effect only (and would not affect the status of the patent in its national jurisdiction).

Accordingly, BSH v Electrolux opened the door for cross-border enforcement of patent rights in Europe.

Proceedings in Fujifilm v Kodak were stayed pending the CJEU’s decision in BSH v Electrolux, which proved pivotal to the outcome of Fujifilm v Kodak.

Indeed, since Kodak (the defendant) was domiciled in Germany (a member state of the UPC), the court determined, following BSH v Electrolux, that it did have jurisdiction to decide upon the infringement action as far as it relates to infringement of the UK part of the European patent. The fact that invalidity of the UK patent was raised as a defence did not shift the jurisdiction from the UPC.

Having confirmed its jurisdiction in the matter, the Mannheim Local Division then took this decision to its natural conclusion. That is, upon confirming its jurisdiction, a finding of infringement was made and an injunction was granted against Kodak in the UK.

Interestingly, enforcement of the injunction does not require any action by the UK courts. Rather, enforcement of the injunction will be achieved through application of fines in the case of violation of the injunction.

Related cases

While Fujifilm v Kodak was the first time that the UPC had issued an injunction covering the UK, it was not the first time that the UPC had exercised so-called long-arm jurisdiction (jurisdiction extending beyond its member states). Even preceding the ruling of the CJEU in BSH v Electrolux, the Düsseldorf Local Division held, in Fujifilm v Kodak (UPC_CFI_355/2023), that its jurisdiction extended to infringement actions concerning member states of the EPC, which are non-EU states, such as the UK.

Therefore, following BSH Hausgerate, perhaps it was only a matter of time until an injunction was issued covering the UK by the UPC.

Furthermore, the injunction imposed in Fujifilm v Kodak does not appear to be an isolated event, with a preliminary injunction also being issued by the Hamburg Local Division in Dyson v Dreame (UPC_CFI_387/2025) which was delivered on 14 August 2025. That preliminary injunction covers the 18 member states of the UPC as well as Spain (which, again, is not a UPC member state), further demonstrating the UPC’s capacity for cross-border enforcement of patent rights in Europe.

However, at the moment the UPC decisions are first instance decisions which have not been tested by appeal. It remains to be seen how this situation will develop, both with respect to any further decisions extending the jurisdiction of the UPC beyond its member states and in relation to any appeals of these first instance decisions.

Conclusion

Fujifilm v Kodak demonstrates a willingness of the UPC to engage in cross-border enforcement of patent rights in Europe, a natural consequence of the decision by the CJEU in BSH v Electrolux.

Businesses domiciled in a member state of the UPC but doing business in the UK

(or other European non-UPC member, such as Spain) should be aware of this decision.

The UPC now appears to have jurisdiction to hear infringement cases regarding the UK validation of a European patent when the defendant is domiciled in a UPC state. Consequently, there is a possibility that litigation in the UPC could lead to injunctive relief impacting the UK market.

Case details at a glance

Decision level: Local Division Mannheim
Parties: FUJIFILM Corporation (claimant), Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH and Kodak Holding GmbH (defendants)
Citation: UPC_CFI_365/2023
Date: 18 July 2025
Decision: dycip.com/upc-ord-33199-2025

Related UP & UPC resources

We frequently publish UP & UPC related content and cannot always include everything in our newsletters. Recent articles you may find of interest include the following:

• Added matter at the UPC: Samsung succeeds in revocation of Headwater patents
• Don’t jump the gun: preliminary injunction granted in 17 UPC states against generic pharmaceutical company
• UPC CFI 315/2023, GRUR-RS 2024, 30221: NJOY Netherlands/Juul Labs International
• Our detailed guide to the UPC has been updated to reference the most important and recent case law