City Glass and Glazing v Maars Holding (CFI, 29 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a decision of 29 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_455/2024 and UPC_CFI_684/2024), the Hague Local Division dismissed both City Glass and Glazing Private Limited’s infringement action against four Maars group companies and their counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 1 651 838, a glazing system patent that expired on 14 July 2024. The patent was held valid but not infringed. The decision shows how a damages claim based on a patent that expired after the UPCA entered into force is handled, and how costs can be assessed at once on the basis of a framework agreed by the parties.

The decisive point is the construction of feature 1.6: « turning movements » means actual movement, not merely torque, which disposes both of the prior art relied upon and of the allegedly infringing products.

Facts and procedure

City Glass alleged that the demountable glass walls Maars markets as « Horizon Products » infringed claim 1 literally or by equivalence. As the patent had expired, it sought only a finding of infringement, information, damages and costs. Maars denied infringement and counterclaimed for revocation for insufficiency, lack of novelty and lack of inventive step. The value of each action was set at EUR 250,000, City Glass provided EUR 19,000 as security for costs and the oral hearing took place on 8 July 2025.

The applicable law

Jurisdiction over a patent that expired after the UPCA entered into force rests on Art. 3(c) UPCA and, as regards the defendants, on Art. 31 UPCA read with Arts 4 and 8 of Regulation No 1215/2012 and Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA, it was not disputed (paragraph 15). The Division applied the Court of Appeal’s principles of construction: the claim is the decisive basis for protection, and the description and drawings must always be used to interpret it, for infringement and validity alike (paragraph 23), with a reference to NanoString v 10x Genomics and to decision G 1/24 of the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal.

Question

Does the patented glazing system cover profiles whose pivoting is blocked once assembled, and does the same reading of the claim preserve its novelty and inventive step?

Decision

The skilled person is a mechanical engineer (paragraph 24). Feature 1.4 requires the rubber beading to be forced in on both sides of the glass, between the assembled profiles, after the glass is placed (paragraphs 25 and 26). Feature 1.6 refers to actual pivoting of the male profile about the fulcrum, « movement » having been chosen over « moment ». External forces such as wind are covered, but the claim is limited to outwardly directed forces (paragraphs 27 to 32). So read, the claim is sufficiently disclosed (paragraphs 33 to 37), novel over the two citations relied upon, one of which used pre-mounted beading (paragraphs 38 to 44), and inventive starting from DE 087, which does not disclose features 1.4 and 1.6 (paragraphs 45 to 50). The Horizon Products, however, do not meet feature 1.6: once assembled, the lower nose of the male profile prevents any further tightening, and the Division saw no viable equivalence argument, equivalence on feature 1.4 was left open (paragraphs 51 to 53). On costs, the Division followed the framework the parties agreed by email of 20 June 2025: Maars, successful on infringement but unsuccessful on revocation, recovers half, namely EUR 24,500 (EUR 19,000 in legal costs and EUR 5,500 in court fees), payable within three weeks, with the security available for release to it, interest on late payment was refused for want of a basis in the UPC texts (paragraphs 55 to 60).

Key points for practice

• A strict reading of a functional feature saves validity while ruling out infringement.
• The UPC hears damages claims based on a European patent that expired after the UPCA entered into force (Art. 3(c) UPCA).
• An agreement between the parties on the costs framework allows costs to be assessed in the merits decision itself, in proportion to each party’s success.
• Practical point: the UPC does not award interest on late payment of costs and leaves the matter to national law, which should be factored into recovery.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 3(c), 31, 33(1)(b), 73(1) and 82

Statute of the Court

Art. 37(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 105.5, 118.8, 158.2, 190, 191, 220.1(a), 224.1(a), 263.3, 354 and 355.4

European Patent Convention

Art. 69

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4 and 8

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal, G 1/24

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.