Canon v Katun (UPC_CFI_351/2024 & UPC_CFI_595/2024)
Decision date:
11 February 2026
Osborne Clarke summary
- This was an action for infringement of Canon's patent relating to printer consumables against Katun and a counterclaim for revocation. The Dusseldorf LD found the patent valid and infringed and granted an injunction.
- The court also ruled on publication of the decision. Canon sought both the right to publish the decision on its own website and in industry journals of its choice, and an order under Article 80 UPCA obliging Katun to publish the operative part of the decision on their website.
- The Dusseldorf LD stated that the decision whether to permit publication by Canon should depend on a two step-test, citing the Court of Appeal's decision dated 25 November 2025 in Meril v Edwards (paragraphs 199-200). The court asked (1) whether the claimant has a legitimate interest in publication and (2) whether the defendant’s interests outweigh this. It held that both limbs favoured Canon, noting it was necessary to correct the false impression created by Katun's statements on their US website that they were confident their products did not infringe. However, the court held that there should be a restriction on the number of public media outlets in which Canon could publish the decision, agreeing to publication in five industry journals. It also held that publication on Canon's website should be restricted to one month.
- The court also made an order that Katun be required to publish the outcome on their own website, noting their statements expressing confidence that there was no infringement. The court ordered Katun to publish the operative part of the decision stating that infringement had occurred, again for a period of one month.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.