No. 155 - 3 November 2026
Agfa v Gucci – Court of Appeal, decision of 21 October 2026, UPC-CoA-582/2025 et al.
Can a manufacturing method be anticipated by a publicly available product, even if the method itself was not disclosed? And must the skilled person have had a particular reason to analyse the product?
The Court of Appeal has clarified two important aspects of public prior use. A manufacturing method forms part of the state of the art if the skilled person could establish it by analysing a publicly available product without undue burden. There is no additional requirement that the skilled person would have had a reason to carry out such an analysis.
The Court also confirms that the product need not disclose every detail necessary to reproduce its exact composition. It is sufficient that the skilled person can carry out the claimed method using the information obtained and common general knowledge.
Agfa sued Gucci for infringement of EP 3 388 490, concerning a method for decorating natural leather using pigmented UV-curable inkjet inks.
Gucci counterclaimed for revocation, relying on the public prior use of leather products bearing its Flora pattern. The Hamburg Local Division dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation. Both parties appealed.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that a manufacturing method may become available to the public through products manufactured using that method.
The decisive question is whether the skilled person, using common general knowledge, could establish the manufacturing method by analysing the publicly available product without undue burden.
Agfa argued that the skilled person would have needed a particular reason to analyse the product and investigate its manufacturing process.
The Court rejected this argument.
Art. 54(2) EPC does not require a motivation to analyse a publicly available product. It is sufficient that the relevant technical information was objectively accessible through such an analysis.
The Court also clarified the degree of technical information that must be obtainable from the product.
The disclosure must enable the skilled person to carry out the claimed manufacturing method using common general knowledge. However, there is no requirement to reproduce features of the publicly available product that are not part of the claimed invention.
Gucci had submitted chemical analyses of a publicly available Flora wallet demonstrating that pigmented UV-curable inkjet inks had been used.
Agfa argued that the analyses did not establish the precise quantities of the pigments and therefore did not enable the skilled person to reproduce the exact ink composition.
The Court disagreed. Claim 1 did not require any particular pigment concentration, and the skilled person knew how to use pigmented inks in the claimed manufacturing method.
The inability to reproduce the precise ink formulation therefore did not prevent the wallet from anticipating the claimed method.
The Court of Appeal found that the publicly available Flora wallet anticipated the independent claims, reversing the Hamburg Local Division's assessment. Certain dependent claims survived, while the infringement action remained unsuccessful.
