2025-04-30 - LD Hamburg - GG Luxury Goods v. AGFA - CC_309/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- CC_309/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- GG Luxury Goods GmbH v. AGFA NV
Kernaussage: The Hamburg Local Division dismissed both AGFA's infringement action against nine Kering/Gucci companies and the defendants' counterclaim for revocation of a patent on decorating natural leather with an inkjet image on an achromatic base coat.
2025-04-30 - LD Hamburg - GG Luxury Goods
v.
AGFA - CC_309/2024
notable
The Hamburg Local Division dismissed both AGFA's infringement action against nine Kering/Gucci companies and the defendants' counterclaim for revocation of a patent on decorating natural leather with an inkjet image on an achromatic base coat. It held that a counterclaim under Art. 32(1)(e) and 65(1) UPCA may attack the whole patent, including claims not asserted, because a defendant cannot bring a separate revocation action (Art. 33(4) UPCA). Construing 'achromatic' through the patent's own definition (all wavelengths present in approximately equal amounts) and refusing to read in description passages inconsistent with the granted claims after a prosecution amendment, the Court found ivory base coats chromatic, so neither the attacked products nor the prior-use Flora products fell within the claims. Inventive-step attacks and physical evidence first raised at the oral hearing were rejected as late under R. 25, R. 36, R. 263 and R. 9.2 RoP.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claims 1, 10 and 15 are novel over HLAR 7 (white undercoat only as one option, not for natural leather and as inkjet layer), HLAR 8 (base coat with yellow pigment, chromatic) and HLAR 9 (ink jetted into, not onto, the liquid layer), and over the Flora prior use whose base coat is ivory (sect. C. I-III, V).”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“The only written attack against claim 10 (HLAR 9 with HLAR 7 or 8) fails because HLAR 9 jets ink into the base layer and HLAR 8 discloses a chromatic base coat; further attacks raised only in the oral hearing were not admitted (sect. C. IV, VI).”