2026-10-21 - CoA - Gucci Sweden et al. v. AGFA - UPC_CoA_582/2025, UPC_CoA_590/2025, UPC_CoA_591/2025, UPC_CoA_592/2025, UPC_CoA_593/2025, UPC_CoA_594/2025, UPC_CoA_595/2025, UPC_CoA_596/2025, UPC_CoA_597/2025

1. A manufacturing method of a publicly used product is made available to the public by use pursuant to Art. 54(2) EPC if, at the relevant date, the person skilled in the art could establish the method without undue burden by analysing the product’s composition. There is no support in the EPC for an additional requirement that the skilled person would need particular reasons for analysing the product. 2. Where a publicly available product discloses information which is relevant to the novelty of a claimed manufacturing method, the disclosure must be such that the skilled person can use the claimed method on the basis of their common general knowledge. Reproducibility of features which are not part of the claimed invention is not required.

The Court of Appeal held that a manufacturing method is made available to the public by prior use of a product if the skilled person could establish the method without undue burden by analysing the product, with no additional requirement that the skilled person have a particular reason to analyse it; reproducibility is required only for the claimed features, not for others such as ink quantities. Applying this, Gucci's own earlier 'Flora' leather products anticipated Agfa's leather-decorating method claim, because standard analytical techniques (GC/MS, IR, Raman) revealed the use of pigmented UV-curable inkjet inks; expert evidence produced without the defendant's internal knowledge carried more weight than analyses guided by it. The Court corrected the Hamburg LD's construction: 'achromatic colour' is a broad concept read with the description and common general knowledge, covering off-white base coats containing some chromatic pigment, and an amendment during examination did not exclude that. Following Fujifilm v Kodak, dependent claims were examined individually; claim 5 (summed polyfunctional monomer and oligomer content) and claim 9 survived, others were anticipated or obvious. The infringement appeal failed because infringement of claim 5 was not proven and neither R. 172 RoP nor Art. 55 UPCA shifted the burden of proof.