AGFA v Gucci (CoA, UPC_CoA_602/2025, 21 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 30 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

This entry corresponds to appeal UPC_CoA_602/2025, brought by Agfa and decided by the Court of Appeal’s decision of 21 October 2026 on EP 3 388 490, given in ten joined appeals. Agfa’s appeal against the dismissal of its infringement action is rejected and the costs of the appeal are placed on Agfa. On Gucci’s appeals, the Court revokes the patent for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden, save for the combinations of claims 5 and 1 and of claims 9 and 1, and claims 6 to 8 as dependent on maintained claim 5. The decision carries two headnotes on public prior use.

Facts and procedure

Agfa had sued nine Gucci companies for infringement, and they had counterclaimed for revocation. The impugned decision dismissed the infringement action, dismissed the counterclaims for revocation in their entirety and left sixty per cent of the costs with Gucci. Both sides appealed, Agfa against the dismissal of infringement, Gucci against the dismissal of revocation and on costs.

The applicable law

The Court applies Article 54(2) of the European Patent Convention on the state of the art made available to the public, including by use, together with the rules of the Agreement on claim interpretation and the allocation of costs.

Question

On what conditions is a manufacturing method made available to the public through use of a product, and what must a publicly available product disclose in order to destroy the novelty of a claimed method?

Decision

A manufacturing method of a publicly used product is made available to the public by use, within the meaning of Article 54(2) of the Convention, if at the relevant date the skilled person could establish the method without undue burden by analysing the product’s composition. The Convention gives no support to a further requirement that the skilled person would need particular reasons to analyse the product. Where a publicly available product discloses information relevant to the novelty of a claimed manufacturing method, the disclosure must enable the skilled person to use the claimed method on the basis of common general knowledge, reproducibility of features which are not part of the claimed invention not being required. Applying those principles, the Court rejects Agfa’s appeal, places the appeal costs on Agfa, sets aside the impugned decision in part on the counterclaims and revokes the patent in the five territories, subject to the reservations above, Agfa also bearing the additional sixty per cent of the first-instance costs previously left with Gucci.

Key points for practice

• Public use of a product may destroy the novelty of the method that makes it, where analysis of its composition allows the skilled person to establish the method without undue burden.
• Any motivation of the skilled person to analyse the product is not an additional condition, which widens the reach of public prior use appreciably.
• The enablement requirement bears on the claimed features, not on the other features of the product.
• A patentee losing on validity on appeal may also bear, retroactively, first-instance costs initially left with the other side.

Provisions applied

EPC

Article 54(2)

UPC Agreement

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Related decisions

• Gucci v Agfa (CoA, 21 October 2026), same decision, entry for the appeals brought by Gucci.
• Agfa v Gucci Sweden (CFI, 30 April 2025), earlier step in the dispute.

Only the official text is authentic.