UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: —

ACT_561734/2023

InfringementMain Infringement ActionHamburg LDInfringement Action—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

AGFA NV sued Gucci entities for infringement of its inkjet-decorated leather patent EP 3 170 670, asserting that ivory-coloured base coats on Gucci leather goods met the 'perfect achromatic colour' requirement of claim 1. The Hamburg Local Division dismissed the infringement action, finding that ivory is not a perfect achromatic colour, so the key claim feature was not satisfied. Both the infringement action and Gucci's invalidity counterclaim were dismissed, with costs split 40% (AGFA) / 60% (Gucci) reflecting each side's partial failure.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Ivory-coloured base coat does not constitute a 'perfect achromatic colour' as required by claim 1 of the patent

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

    Note: The Hamburg Local Division found that the ivory base coat on Gucci's leather goods is not a perfect achromatic colour (black, white, or grey), defeating infringement of claim feature 1.1.1.

  • Patent's 'own lexicon' interpretation principle is limited to description parts related to the specific feature in question

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

    Note: The court held that a patent may serve as its own lexicon only for description parts directly relating to the feature at issue; description specifications inconsistent with the granted claims cannot support a broad claim interpretation.

  • Counterclaimant cannot introduce new invalidity grounds or new novelty-destroying documents for the first time at the oral hearing

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 25 RoP

    Note: The court confirmed that new invalidity documents cannot be introduced at oral hearing stage for the first time, preserving procedural fairness.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Gucci's leather goods (Pikarar Padlock Bag and Loafers) infringe claim 1 and claim 10 of AGFA's patent

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC

    Reason: The ivory-coloured base coat does not satisfy claim feature 1.1.1 (perfect achromatic colour), and without this feature neither claim 1 nor dependent claim 10 is infringed; accordingly the Gillette/private prior use defence was also not reached.

  • Counterclaim for revocation of the patent should succeed

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA

    Reason: The court dismissed the invalidity counterclaim; excerpts do not detail the specific grounds rejected but the counterclaim was unsuccessful.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
patent as own lexicon limited to relevant description partsdescription inconsistent with claims cannot broaden claim interpretationlate-filed invalidity grounds inadmissible at oral hearing stagefeature-by-feature infringement analysisGillette / private prior use defence as auxiliary (not reached)

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The central claim construction issue was the meaning of 'achromatic colour' in EP 3 170 670 (inkjet-decorated leather). The court interpreted 'perfect achromatic colour' as requiring true black, white, or grey, not ivory. It rejected AGFA's attempt to use description passages inconsistent with the granted claims to broaden this term, applying the principle that the patent's own-lexicon role is limited to description parts directly relating to the feature at issue.