< Back to latest news & events

Blogs

UPC’s Hamburg Local Division provides guidance on the extent to which a patent may be used as its own “lexicon”

June 2025

Agfa NV v Gucci & Anors. [UPC_CFI_278/2023] – Hamburg Local Division of the UPC (Klepsch, Schilling, Sarlin) – 30 April 2025

While we await a decision on G1/24 from the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal on claim interpretation, the UPC’s Hamburg Local Division (LD) has provided guidance on the extent to which a patent may be used as its own “lexicon”.  In apparent contrast to the decision of the EPO’s Technical Board of Appeal in T56/21 that there was no legal basis for adapting the description to the granted claims, the LD took the view that there were several passages in the description of the patent-in-suit that “should have been deleted” in the light of the amendments made to the patent during examination.  The LD found that these parts of the description to be inconsistent with the granted claims and, accordingly, could not serve as a basis for a broad interpretation of the claims.

Background

This case concerned Agfa’s patent to the manufacture of decorated natural leather and leather articles by inkjet printing. The patented method involved applying a base coat containing a pigment for providing an “achromatic colour” to the leather, and then inkjet printing a colour image onto the base coat. Agfa sued Gucci, while Gucci counterclaimed for revocation of the patent.

The dispute centred on the interpretation of the meaning of the term “achromatic colour”.  The independent claim of the patent[1] referred to a “base coat containing a pigment for providing an achromatic colour different from black”. There was agreement among the parties that the term “achromatic” referred to the base coat as a whole rather than the pigment per se, and that the “achromatic colour” was a colour different from black. However, there was disagreement as to what constituted an “achromatic colour” beyond the requirement that it was different from black.

The Judgment

As is now the UPC’s established practice, the Hamburg LD emphasised that the terms used in the claims governed claim construction[2].  They were not just the “starting point” for claim construction but the authoritative basis for determining the scope of protection.  Nevertheless, the description and drawings always had to be considered, even when interpreting seemingly clear terms.  Accordingly, in line with UPC Court of Appeal’s approach in Nanostring v 10x Genomics [UPC_CoA_335/2023], the LD confirmed that a patent could be used as its “own lexicon”.

In the case at hand, the LD construed the “achromatic colour” in the light of paragraph [0021], which contained a definition of the achromatic base coat.  This passage indicated that a chromatic colour was any colour in which one particular wavelength predominated. Blue and green were provided as examples of chromatic colours, while white, grey and black were given as examples of achromatic colours.  The latter colours were said to have no dominant hue, meaning that all wavelengths were present in approximately equal amounts within those colours.

The cases for infringement and validity centred on whether ivory could be considered as an “achromatic colour”.  Applying the definition in paragraph [0021] that all wavelengths had to be present in approximately equal amounts, the LD did not consider an ivory base coat to be “achromatic” within the meaning of the claim because the wavelength requirement was not met. In reaching this conclusion, the LD took the view that, although the patent saw e.g., white and grey as achromatic colours, it was clear to a skilled person that not all white and grey tones fulfilled the patent’s definition of achromatic, as some white or grey tones would not have all wavelengths present in approximately equal amounts.

The LD’s construction of “achromatic colour” may have been disappointing to Agfa because parts of the description of its patent described base coats having off-white, pale clay and pale yellow colours.  Notably, paragraph [0029] of the patent mentioned “a base coat containing white pigment and one or more colour pigments to provide e.g., an off-white or pale clay colour”.  Similarly, Example 3 described the base coat having a “pale yellow (clay colour)”.

In the LD’s view, however, those parts of the text did not support Agfa’s contention that all off-white base coats were within the scope of the claim, because the application as originally filed concerned both chromatic and achromatic colours. The reference to chromatic colour, however, was deleted during the course of examination of the application. Accordingly, the LD saw the “off-white”, “pale clay” and “pale yellow” embodiments as no longer falling within the scope of claim 1 as amended, as they did not have wavelengths presented in approximately equal amounts.  As such, the LD simply saw the “off-white”, “pale clay” and “pale yellow” embodiments as inconsistencies with the granted claims that “should have been deleted”. Their inclusion in the description could not override the clear definition given in paragraph [0021] because of the need for legal certainty.

Conclusion

This case highlights the risk of including narrow definitions of terms in patents. Even if a patent contains examples that arguably support a broader interpretation of a claim, patent owners may not be able to rely on these examples to justify a broad interpretation of the claim if a term is defined more narrowly elsewhere in the text. Although the LD in this case took pains to explain that the prosecution history was not taken into account in all aspects, the LD nonetheless took note of the way the claims had been amended during examination. This influenced its conclusion that the broader examples were inconsistencies that “should have been deleted” when adapting the description to the allowed claims.

While we await the Enlarged Board’s decision on G1/24, it remains to be seen what approach the EPO will adopt when interpreting claims. While the Enlarged Board has indicated that it will provide more clarity on the role of the description in interpreting claims, it is not yet clear whether the Enlarged Board will also tackle the issue of adapting the description.  The latter was not a question formally put forward in G1/24.  However, the President of the EPO considered the question of whether adapting the description was mandatory to be important when considering whether claims should be interpreted in the light of the description[3]. This seems in line with the reasoning applied by the LD in this UPC judgment.

[1] EP3388490

[2] in line with Article 69 EPC and its Protocol

[3] See paragraph 87 of the President’s submissions of 7 November 2024 on G1/24


This article was written by Partner and Patent Attorney Hsu Min Chung

Latest updates

Event - 26th September 2025

INTA’s 2025 Trademark Administrators and Practitioners (TMAP) Meeting

Adjoa Anim, Trade Mark Director at HGF, will be a featured speaker at the 2025 Trademark Administrators and Practitioners (TMAP) Meeting, taking place September 28–30, 2025, in Berlin, Germany. Adjoa …

Event details
Event - 23rd September 2025

Upcoming Webinar: Strategies for engaging with the EPO and JPO to get the Examiner on your side

Date: 20th October 2025 Time: 4.30 PM EDT | 1.30 PM PDT HGF and SHIGA are hosting an exclusive webinar exploring effective strategies for engaging with patent examiners at the European Patent …

Event details

Fashionably IP Podcast – Episodes 41-50 – exploring hot topics in the world of fashion and intellectual property

Episodes 41-50 of the Fashionably IP Podcast where we will be looking at important hot topics in the world of fashion and intellectual property. We will be focusing on key …

Read article

Agritech Thymes: A review of protection for gene edited plants

As we head into a new season, it’s a good time to revisit the current status of protection for Essentially Derived Varieties (EDVs) and plants derived from New Genomic Techniques …

Read article

Avoiding Legal Pitfalls: The Notting Hill Bag Company's Costly Mistake

[2025] EWHC 1793 (IPEC) – Natasha Courtenay-Smith and Notting Hill Bag Company Limited v The Notting Hill Shopping Bag Company Limited, Nangialai Takanai, The Notting Hill Shopper Bag Ltd, Ehsanullah …

Read article
Event - 12th September 2025

Wolters Kluwer Breakfast Panel on AI & IP at AIPPI

Sofie McPherson, Patent Director at HGF, will be moderating a special breakfast panel session hosted by Wolters Kluwer at the AIPPI World Congress in Yokohama on 15 September 2025. Session …

Event details

T1465/23 – No Narrowing by Description—EPO Board Terminates Inventive Step Analysis for Arbitrary Modifications Citing G1/24 and G1/19

“The potential patentability of a specific narrow embodiment…cannot render a claim allowable which, due to its breadth, encompasses a multitude of other, non-inventive embodiments” – r. 3.5. Background EP3113515 was …

Read article

Wrestling with G1/24 – How should the claims be interpreted in view of the description?

In G1/24, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) codified how claims should be interpreted for assessing patentability: in consultation with the description. However, the decision was light on how, in …

Read article