City Glass v Maars (UPC_CFI_684/2024)
Decision date:
29 August 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- This decision concerned an infringement action brought by City Glass in relation to its patent concerning a glazing system, in which it alleged infringement by Maars' Horizon system. Maars counterclaimed for invalidity.
- Claim interpretation – particularly of one feature relating "turning movements" and whether this should be understood as a motion or a torque – was considered to be crucial to both infringement and validity. The Hague LD therefore started by interpreting the claim. Having done so, it found the patent valid but not infringed.
- Maars had counterclaimed for revocation based on insufficiency, anticipation and lack of inventive step. The court dismissed the attacks giving brief reasons.
- City Glass had argued that Maars' Horizon system infringed either literally or by equivalence. The court concluded that the Horizon products lacked two features of the claim, 1.4 and 1.6, on a literal interpretation. City Glass had not argued equivalence for feature 1.6, so the court found that the products did not infringe. Given that, the court considered that it was not necessary for it to determine equivalence for feature 1.4.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.