UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 684/2024

Nov 14, 2024·EP1651838 · GLAZING SYSTEM

Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as granted)
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
  • Martin Luten
  • Michiel Rijsdijk
  • M.j. Bosma
  • M.h. Luten
  • D.e. Colenbrander
Respondents
Representatives
Division
The Hague LD
Technology
  • Other fields
    Civil engineering
Language
English
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
The Hague LDLockedLocked
Judge Edger BrinkmanLockedLocked
Judge Margot KokkeLockedLocked
Judge Stefan JohanssonLockedLocked
Judge Paolo CrippaLockedLocked

At the UPC: MAARS PROJECTEN B.V. (3 cases)·CITY GLASS AND GLAZING PRIVATE LIMITED (3 cases)

Decisions
  • —
    infringement

    Summary: In the main infringement claim: A. Dismisses the orders sought by City Glass; In the counterclaim for revocation: B. Dismisses the orders sought by Maars; In both the infringement action and the counterclaim: C. Orders City Glass to pay legal costs and court fees incurred by Maars of EUR 24,500,- within three weeks;

Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-02-26Not public
Interim-Conference-Decision2025-05-08Not public
Written-Procedure-Closure2025-05-02Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-04-28Not public
Rejoinder to the Reply to Defence to Counterclaim for Revocation2025-04-28Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-03-27Not public
Exhibit MAR-13. Drawings of the assembly of the system of NZ’5622025-03-27Not public
Exhibit MAR-14. Drawings of the assembly of the system of US'2052025-03-27Not public
Exhibit MAR-15. Drawings of the assembly of the system of DE'0872025-03-27Not public
2025.03.27 Rejoinder to the Reply and Reply to Defence to Revocation - Maars et al. v City Glass2025-03-27Not public