ARTICLE
9 September 2025

LD The Hague, August 29, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_684/2024

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
Feature 1.6 of claim 1 in the patent-in-suit (EP 1651838) was central to both infringement and validity.
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

Claim interpretation

Feature 1.6 of claim 1 in the patent-in-suit (EP 1651838) was central to both infringement and validity. The dispute between the parties concerned, inter alia, the meaning of the wording "turning movements" in feature 1.6.

The opposing views:

  • City Glass: "Turning movement" means an actual rotation (not just a torque).
  • Maars: A turning moment/torque (force without necessary movement) suffices as a "turning movement".

Court's Interpretation:

For two reasons, the Court agreed with City Glass that "turning movements" implied "an actual movement", not just torque. Firstly, the claim is, in the court's opinion, a "deliberate choice" for 'movement' because the patent description distinguishes between "turning movement" and "turning moment". Secondly, the claimed functionality of feature 1.6 ("... to further tighten the locking mechanism") requires actual rotation, not just the existence of torque.

Practical implications:

The notion of a "deliberate choice" being reflected by a claim requires particular caution when adapting the description. If (potentially) claim-related embodiments or aspects are not deleted from the description, they may not be relied upon to interpret, especially to broaden the meaning of a claim feature. A simple illustration: suppose the claim is directed to a "nail." Ordinarily, the description — as the patent's own dictionary — might allow "nail" to be understood as encompassing "screw." However, if the description explicitly distinguishes between nails and screws, the Court would treat the claim wording as a deliberate choice to exclude screws.

2. Division

LD The Hague

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_684/2024

4. Type of proceedings

Decision

5. Parties

Claimant: City Glass and Glazing Private Limited

Defendants: MAARS HOLDING B.V.; MAARS PARTITIONING SYSTEMS B.V.; MAARS PROJECTEN B.V.; MAARS FRANCE

6. Patent(s)

EP 1651838

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 69 EPC, Art. 3 (c) UPCA

self

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More