ACT 44624/2024
—·EP1651838: GLAZING SYSTEM
- Case details
- Status—ActionInfringementCategoryMain Infringement Action
- Parties
- ClaimantsReps: Joel Coles (Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP); Peter Fitzpatrick (Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP); Charlotte Malley (Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP)RespondentsReps: Michiel Rijsdijk; M.j. Bosma; M.h. Luten; D.e. Colenbrander
- Division
- The Hague LD
- Judges
- —
- Technology
- Construction · Glazing Systems
- Language
- —
- First decided
- Aug 29, 2025
- 2025-08-29Not infringedInfringement meritsInfringement Action
The Local Division The Hague found that Maars' Horizon Products did not infringe City Glass's expired EP 1 651 838 (glazing system patent) because a key feature of the sole claim (feature 1.6 – self-locking mechanism) was not met; the revocation counterclaim was dismissed as the patent was held valid. Costs were agreed between the parties.
Legal issues:Patent infringement – claim feature analysisExpired patentValidity – counterclaim for revocation dismissedSelf-locking glazing systemAgreed costs settlement
- 49437652014071F728143F7C228D9D41_en.pdf2025-08-29EN
City Glass and Glazing Private Limited (a small Indian company) sued Maars Holding and related Dutch/French entities before the Local Division The Hague for infringement of expired EP 1 651 838 (glazing system patent) by Maars' Horizon Products. The court found no infringement because feature 1.6 of the sole claim — the self-locking mechanism — was not met by the Horizon Products' design, which prevents further movement once assembled. The patent itself was held valid, dismissing Maars' revocation counterclaim. Costs were awarded to Maars, reduced by 50% because Maars lost the counterclaim.
Feature 1.6 (self-locking mechanism) of the sole claim of EP 1 651 838 is not met by Maars' Horizon Products because, once assembled, further movement and tightening of the self-locking system is prevented by the counter-clock nose
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on InterpretationNote: Court accepted Maars' non-infringement analysis on the key distinguishing feature; City Glass had also not argued infringement by equivalence for this feature.
Patent EP 1 651 838 is valid (resisting revocation counterclaim)
ClaimantNote: Court upheld the patent as valid, dismissing Maars' revocation counterclaim.
Direct infringement of EP 1 651 838 (glazing system patent) by Maars' Horizon Products
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on InterpretationReason: Feature 1.6 (self-locking mechanism enabling ongoing tightening) was not met; once assembled, the Horizon Product's lower nose prevents further movement and tightening. City Glass did not argue infringement by equivalence for this feature.
Revocation of EP 1 651 838 (counterclaim for revocation by Maars)
RespondentReason: Dismissed; patent held valid on all challenged grounds.
Browse other cases on this principle.
EP 1 651 838 has a single claim covering a glazing system with two aluminium profiles (male and female) forming a self-locking mechanism. Feature 1.6, the self-locking element, was the key disputed feature. The court construed this feature as requiring the ability to apply ongoing tightening/locking after assembly. In the Horizon Products, once assembled, the lower nose (counter-clock) prevents further movement and tightening, so feature 1.6 is not met. City Glass did not advance a doctrine of equivalents argument for this feature.