Gucci v AGFA (CoA, 21 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 22 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 21 October 2026 on the cross appeals UPC_CoA_582/2025, UPC_CoA_590/2025 to 597/2025 and UPC_CoA_602/2025, the UPC Court of Appeal (panel 1a), hearing appeals against the decision of the Hamburg Local Division of 30 April 2025, as rectified on 2 July 2025, in the dispute between AGFA NV and nine Gucci group companies concerning EP 3 388 490 on the decoration of natural leather, dismissed AGFA’s appeal against the dismissal of its infringement action, allowed Gucci’s appeals in part and revoked the patent for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden beyond certain combinations of dependent claims.

Facts and procedure

AGFA NV owns EP 3 388 490, which concerns decorating natural leather by inkjet printing UV curable pigmented inks onto a base coat. It sued nine Gucci group companies before the Hamburg Local Division for infringement of claims 1, 3 to 7, 10 and 12 to 14. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent in its entirety. In its decision of 30 April 2025, rectified on 2 July 2025, the Local Division dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaims and split the costs 40% to AGFA and 60% to Gucci. AGFA appealed the dismissal of its action (UPC_CoA_602/2025) and the Gucci companies appealed the dismissal of their counterclaims (UPC_CoA_582/2025 and 590/2025 to 597/2025). The oral hearing took place on 10 September 2026. Both sides also filed numerous requests on the admissibility of late exhibits, expert reports and arguments.

Question

Is the manufacturing method of a publicly available product part of the state of the art where the skilled person can establish it by analysing the product, without needing any particular reason to carry out that analysis, and does the invalidity of the independent claim carry the dependent claims with it?

Decision

The Court first admitted Gucci’s new exhibits and the Clayton report, holding that it is not bound by a preclusion ordered at first instance (Rule 222.2 RoP, para. 18), and admitted AGFA’s Schoenmakers reports in turn for the sake of equality of arms (paras. 19 to 21). On construction, it held that an achromatic base coat may contain a chromatic pigment alongside a large amount of achromatic pigment (paras. 28 to 32), that a colour is achromatic where all wavelengths are present in approximately equal amounts, rejecting Gucci’s ΔE94 test (paras. 33 to 42), and that the concentration range in claim 5 covers polyfunctional monomers and oligomers taken together (paras. 43 to 48). It then found that the Flora wallet, which had been made available to the public, disclosed the method of claim 1 (an achromatic base coat, a UV curable ink shown through the detection of photoinitiators, and pigmented inks shown by Raman spectroscopy, paras. 52 to 74), so that independent claims 10, 14 and 15 also fell (para. 75). The invalidity of claim 1 did not automatically extend to the dependent claims, which AGFA had identified in its defence as independently valid (paras. 76 to 79). Claim 5 was held novel over JP 054 and US 601 (paras. 82 to 89) and claim 9 inventive (para. 99), while other dependent claims were found to lack novelty or inventive step. The auxiliary requests were not examined (para. 104). Infringement fell away with the revoked claims and was not proven for the maintained combination of claims 5 and 1 (paras. 105 to 110). The patent was revoked for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden to the extent that it exceeds claim 5 in combination with claim 1, claim 9 in combination with claim 1 and claims 6 to 8 insofar as they depend on the maintained claim 5. AGFA bears the costs at both instances and the total value of the appeals was set at EUR 2,500,000 (paras. 113 and 114).

Key points for practice

• Public prior use: the manufacturing method of a publicly used product is made available to the public within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC if the skilled person can establish it by analysing the product without undue burden, and the EPC does not require the skilled person to have particular reasons for that analysis (headnote 1, para. 50). The disclosure must enable the skilled person to carry out the claimed method using common general knowledge, but features outside the claim need not be reproducible (headnote 2).
• Claim construction: an « achromatic » base coat may include a chromatic pigment next to a large amount of achromatic pigment, and the term is read in light of the definition in the description (all wavelengths present in approximately equal amounts) rather than by a ΔE94 threshold (paras. 28 to 42).
• Dependent claims: the invalidity of an independent claim does not necessarily entail that of its dependent claims, whose validity must be assessed where the patentee has specified in its defence, as Rule 29A RoP requires, which claims it defends as independently valid (paras. 76 to 79).
• Burden of proof: Rules 172(1) and 172(2) RoP do not reverse the burden of proving infringement, Article 55(1) UPCA requires a process yielding a new product and Article 55(2) UPCA requires identical products, and AGFA established neither for claim 5 (paras. 108 to 110).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 29A, 172(1), 172(2) and 222.2 RoP

UPC Agreement

Articles 55(1), 55(2) and 65(4) UPCA

EPC

Articles 54(1), 54(2), 64, 67, 69, 83 and 138(1)(b) EPC

Related decisions

• AGFA v Gucci, 30 April 2025, Hamburg Local Division decision under appeal, set aside on the counterclaims for revocation and on costs.
• AGFA v Gucci, 9 August 2024, confidentiality order made at first instance in the same dispute.
• AGFA v Gucci, 4 October 2023, order extending the time limits for the defence at the outset of the same proceedings.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 22 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.