Main Details: Registry number ACT_561734/2023 Date 30 April, 2025 Parties AGFA NV v. Gucci Sweden AB, GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS, Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, Gucci Logistica S.p.A. Order/Decision reference ORD_598576/2023 Type of action Infringement Action Language of Proceedings English Court - Division Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division English Headnotes: 1. Art. 32 (1) e) and 65 (1) UPCA allow to attack the patent in its entirety by means of a counterclaim, even though single claims are not a part of the infringement requests. 2. The definition of claimed features based on the principle that a patent may be used as its “own lexicon” is limited to those parts of the description that are related to the feature in question. 3. Specifications in the description that are not consistent with the granted claims cannot serve as a basis of a broad interpretation of a claim. 4. A counterclaimant cannot introduce new grounds of invalidity of the attacked patent or introduce new documents considered novelty destroying or convincing starting points for the assessment of lack of inventive step in the oral hearing for the first time. English Keywords: Art. 32 (1) e) and 65 (1) UPCA; Claim interpretation; Late filed validity attack, Rule 25 RoP Back to Decisions and Orders
Main Details: Registry number ACT_561734/2023 Date 30 April, 2025 Parties AGFA NV v. Gucci Sweden AB, GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS, Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, Gucci Logistica S.p.A. Order/Decision reference ORD_598576/2023 Type of action Infringement Action Language of Proceedings English Court - Division Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division English Headnotes: 1. Art. 32 (1) e) and 65 (1) UPCA allow to attack the patent in its entirety by means of a counterclaim, even though single claims are not a part of the infringement requests. 2. The definition of claimed features based on the principle that a patent may be used as its “own lexicon” is limited to those parts of the description that are related to the feature in question. 3. Specifications in the description that are not consistent with the granted claims cannot serve as a basis of a broad interpretation of a claim. 4. A counterclaimant cannot introduce new grounds of invalidity of the attacked patent or introduce new documents considered novelty destroying or convincing starting points for the assessment of lack of inventive step in the oral hearing for the first time. English Keywords: Art. 32 (1) e) and 65 (1) UPCA; Claim interpretation; Late filed validity attack, Rule 25 RoP Back to Decisions and Orders