UPC_CFI_455/2024
ACT_ 44624/2024
UPC_CFI_684/2024
CC_60624/2024

DECISION
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
Local Division of The Hague
delivered on 29 August 2025
concerning EP 1651838

HEADNOTE: expired patent; final cost decision; security deposit

KEYWORDS: R.3(c) UPCA

CLAIMANT/DEFENDANT IN THE COUNTERCLAIM
CITY GLASS AND GLAZING PRIVATE LIMITED
Kerala – IN
Referred to as “Claimant” or “City Glass”
Represented by Joel Coles, Peter
FitzPatrick and Charlotte Malley,
Powell Gilbert

DEFENDANTS/CLAIMANTS IN THE COUNTERCLAIM
1) MAARS HOLDING B.V.
- Newtonweg 1 - 3846 BJ - Harderwijk,
Gelderland – NL
2) MAARS PARTITIONING SYSTEMS B.V.
- Newtonweg 1 - 3846 BJ - Harderwijk,
Gelderland – NL
3) MAARS PROJECTEN B.V.
- Newtonweg 1 - 3846 BJ - Harderwijk, Gelderland – NL
4) MAARS FRANCE
95 Rue La Boetie - 75008 - Paris -FR
Defendants 1 to 4 in the infringement action are also claimants in de counterclaim
action and are referred to collectively as “Maars” (in plural) and individually as
“Maars Holding”, “MPS” “Maars Projecten” and “Maars France”, respectively.
Maars are represented by Michiel Rijsdijk, Mr. M.J. Bosma, M.H. Luten and D.E.
Colenbrander

Patent no. Proprietor/s
EP1651838 CITY GLASS AND GLAZING PRIVATE LIMITED

DECIDING JUDGES
This decision is issued by the panel.

LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English

ORAL HEARING: 8 July 2025

I. SUMMARY OF FACTS
1. City Glass is a company established in 2005 and based in Ernakulum, Kerala (India). It is a small
(seven employees) business focusing on the design and marketing of products including those
containing a self-locking glazing system according to the patent. It sells its products both do-
mestically and internationally through distributors. The inventor of the patent is a majority
shareholder of City Glass since 2015.
2. City Glass was the proprietor of European Patent EP 1 651 838, entitled "Glazing System" (“EP
838” or “the patent"). The patent was granted on 20 April 2011, upon an international appli-
cation filed on 17 April 2004 (published as WO 2005/010310 on 3 February 2005), claiming
priority to United Arab Emirates patent application AE 2422003, which has a filing date of 30
July 2003. No opposition was filed.
3. EP 838 was in force in several Contracting Member States until expiry, including in Belgium,
France and the Netherlands. The patent expired on 14 July 2024. In Austria the patent was
valid until 15 July 2020.
4. The patent relates to a glazing system. In the original English language, the only claim of the
patent, divided into features as agreed on by the parties, reads as follows:
1. Glazing system comprising
1.1. two aluminium profiles having a male and a female aluminium profile (1, 2) creating a
secure space for keeping a glass panel tightly in position,
1.2. said profiles (1, 2) forming a self locking mechanism, and
1.3 a grooved rubber beading positioned between the glass panel and the profiles (1, 2),
1.4. said grooved rubber beading being forced in between the glass panel and the profiles
(1, 2) and creating outward forces on the upper legs of the profiles (1, 2) forcing them
apart,
1.5. said profiles (1, 2) comprising curved hooking parts
1.6. adapted such that the turning movements provided by said outward forces and
external forces at the pivotal fulcrum forces the locking mechanism together to further
tighten the locking mechanism in order to arrest the glass panel in position.

5. The – compact - description of the patent contains inter alia the following paragraphs:
Technical Field
[0001] The current invention relates to a unique and compact self locking mechanism, composed of
two aluminum [sic] profiles designed in such a way to self lock when Glass is placed on the female
profile and the male profile is inserted and the mechanism further tightens grip on the glass edges when
pushed in a grooved rubber (which is mandatory for glazing to avoid touching metal, to allow expansion
and to absorb impacts).
(…)
Disclosure of the Invention:
(…)
[0006] In view of the above factors and considering the demand for faster glazing, the current invention
according to clai[m] 1 emphasizes the issue of safety and at the same time addresses the importance
for aesthetic appeal, allowing enough clearance for glazing (one could decide glass size before installing
frames at site) and making site installation easy.
Brief Description of the Drawings
[0007]
- Fig 1 & Fig 2: Female and Male profiles.
- Fig 3: Fixing of profile using a screw.
- Fig 4: Glass Packing on the part 2 Profile (minimum 2 per Glass panel).
- Fig 5: 10mm thick Glass (suitable to the frame size) placed over the Part 2 profile in Fig 5.
- Fig 6: Profile Part 1 through the gap on Profile Part 2.
- Fig 7: Insertion of grooved rubber beading between the gap of profiles from both sides of the glass
panel using force.
- Fig 8: Scientific principle of the mechanism of the glazing system explained.
Preferred Embodiments of the Invention
[0008] The Glazing System consists of two extruded Aluminum profiles (Male & Female) designed in
such a way to create a secure space for keeping Glass Panels safely & tightly in position. The important
aspect of the invention is that when the Glass panels placed on the Female profile and the Male profile
is inserted and the Rubber beading is forced in (by hand) between the Glass & Profiles (both sides)
creates outward forces on the upper legs of the profiles (forcing them apart). The turning movements
at the pivotal fulcrum forces the locking system together which is due to the curved hooking parts on
the profiles (at bottom) engage each other to self lock and thus arrest the profiles in position.
Method of Industrial Application of the Invention
[0009] The scientific principles used are the NEWTON’S LAW OF FORCE and the property of Elasticity of
the rubber beading and the transmission of the rotational moments of the moving parts around the
Fulerum [Fulcrum, JR]. The following explanation is read in relation to Fig 8:
F - Outward Force (Due to Rubber Beading)
P - Inward Force (Creating the Locking)
C - Fulcrum Point
[0010] Insertion of the rubber beading between the glass and the profile sections (Part 1 & 2) creates
outward forces (F) to the legs of both sections forcing them apart "F". A turning moment at the pivotal
fulcrum (C) forces the locking system together (P). The locking system is due t[o] the curved hooking
profile of the lock built into the legs of the sections (Male & Female) creating mating edges, hence
arresting the profile section in position.
[0011] The pre-determined variables are the sizing of the glass and that of the rubber beading. In this
arrangement any external forces applied due to conditions like wind or vibrations caused by physical
movements whose action may act to dislodge the Glass from its set position only acts to further tighten
the fastening mechanism of this system to arrest the Glass panel in position.
6. The eight figures of the patent specification are shown below.
7. Maars are members of the same group of companies. Maars Projecten, MPS, and Maars France
are all subsidiaries of Maars Holding. MPS develops, manufactures and commercializes among
others sustainable and demountable glass walls which it sells as “Horizon Products”. Maars
Projecten and Maars France deliver and install Horizon Products that they purchase from MPS
in the Netherlands and France, respectively.
8. The Horizon Products all incorporate the allegedly infringing Horizon System, illustrated in the
Maars Product Brochure as follows:

In the Maars Technical Brochure, the following details of the self-locking mechanism are shown
(on the right side as marked up by City Glass (fig 6 SoC):
II.REMEDIES SOUGHT AND SUBMISSIONS
9. Arguing that Maars directly or indirectly infringes the patent, literally or by equivalence, in UPC-
territory with its Horizon Products, City Glass, after limiting its requests in the interim phase
(see 14 below), request that the Court:
- make a finding that EP 838 has been infringed by the acts of each of the Defendants in
respect of the Horizon Products,
and to order with immediate enforceability that:
- the Defendants and each of them, within three weeks after service of the judgment to
be rendered in these proceedings, is ordered to inform the Claimant of
i. the origin and distribution channels of the infringing Horizon Products and any
other infringing products incorporating the Horizon System;

ii. the quantities produced, manufactured, delivered, received or ordered, as well
as the price(s) obtained for the infringing Horizon Products and any other infringing
products incorporating the Horizon System; and
iii. the identity of any third person involved in the production or distribution of the
infringing Horizon Products and any other infringing products incorporating the
Horizon System.
- any failure to comply with the order under the paragraph above will render the Defend-
ants and each of them liable to pay to the Court a penalty of up to €500 (Five Hundred
Euro) per day for the violation of the order, or such other amount as found appropriate
by the Court;
- the Defendants and each of them are liable for all damages resulting from the patent
infringement for the Relevant Period, the amount of which is to be determined in sep-
arate proceedings; and
- the Defendants and each of them are to bear the legal costs of these proceedings as
well as all other costs incurred by the Claimant.
10. Maars request that the Court dismiss the claim, submitting that it does not infringe the claim
of the patent because features 1.4 and 1.6 of the claim are not met in the Horizon Products. In
any case Maars Holding does not infringe, because its activities are limited to financial
activities; it does not perform allegedly infringing activities with the Horizon Products.
11. Furthermore, Maars argue that the patent cannot be infringed as it was never valid and should
be revoked. In line with this argumentation, Maars filed a counterclaim for revocation of the
patent, arguing that the patent is invalid for the following reasons:
- Insufficiency of disclosure: no enabling disclosure of further tightening when outward
forces are created at the upper legs of the profiles.
- Lack of novelty over NZ 198562 A (“NZ 562”) published on 21 February 1986
- Lack of novelty over US 3,155,205 (“US 205”) published 3 November 1964
- Lack of Inventive step starting from DE 2452087 (“DE 087) published on 20 May 1976
in combination with US 205 and/or common general knowledge (CGK)
-
12. Maars thus request that the Court:
- in the main proceedings: reject City Glass’ requests.
- In the counterclaim: revoke European Patent EP 838 in its entirety.
- In the main proceedings and counterclaim: order City Glass to pay Maars’ legal costs of
the main proceedings, the counterclaim proceedings and the related proceedings as
well as all other expenses incurred by Maars, plus interest from 14 days after the
judgment to be given in these proceedings, or at least from a date to be determined by
the Court, if and to the extent that City Glass has not paid these costs before then.
13. By order of the panel of 17 December 2024 City Glass was ordered to provide Maars with secu-
rity for the legal costs and other expenses incurred and/or to be incurred by Maars in first instance
in the amount of EUR 19.000. This amount was deposited by City Glass on the dedicated UPC
account.
14. Decision taken at the interim conference include the following (confirmed in an R.105.5 order):
I. The value of the infringement proceeding/action is set at EUR 250,000.-.
II. The value of the counterclaim proceedings/action is set at EUR 250,000.-.
III. In view of the established facts set out above, the R.190 and R.191 applications
(App_18931/2025 and App_18932/202517) are withdrawn and the workflows will be closed
(whereto this order shall be uploaded in those workflows as well as in the main actions).
IV. City Glass does not maintain its request for the relief sought at paragraphs 78(c) and (d) of its
Statement of Claim, which limitation of claim is granted (R.263.3 RoP).
V. Parties shall submit, within two weeks from today, English translations of German and French
exhibits in so far as they want the Court to take these into account and Maars cs shall submit
within the same period, as a separate exhibit (e.g. MAR 10A) with the figures 9-11 that are
missing in MAR 10 (and that are shown in MAR 16).
VI. In case the parties cannot reach an agreement on legal costs, the parties will submit an estimate
of the legal costs that they seek to recover two weeks before the oral hearing, which estimate
can be updated 24 hours before the oral hearing.
VII. Parties were given the opportunity to present oral pleadings at the oral hearing for a maximum
of 60 minutes each side with a rebuttal of fifteen minutes (maximum). Parties can submit plead-
ing notes, provided these are exchanged at the start of the pleading time to monitor conform-
ity. The pleading notes cannot be uploaded in the CMS but serve as transcript of part of the
recordings of the OH only.
VIII. In case parties wish to use slides during the OH, these need to be submitted (by email) 24 hours
before the start of the OH.
III.GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION
III.A – SUMMARY AND POINTS AT ISSUE
15. The subject-matter of the proceedings is, on the one hand, the alleged past infringement of
the patent and, on the other hand, its alleged invalidity as argued in the counterclaim. Because
the patent has expired, only damages are claimed in the main action. The jurisdiction and
competence of (this local division of) the UPC is not in dispute. Because the patent expired
after the UPCA came into force, the UPC is considered competent to hear this action regarding
damages (Art. 3(c) UPCA). The jurisdiction and competence is based on the place of residence
of three of the defendants (Art. 31 UPCA, Art. 4 BR and Art. 33.1 (b) UPCA). The competence
vis-a-vis Maars France is based on (Art. 31 UPCA and) Art. 8 BR and Art. 33.1(b) UPCA).
16. As both validity and infringement assessments depend on claim construction, on which the
parties have diverging opinions, this will be addressed first (in Part III.B) together with a
discussion of the patent's general understanding. The skilled person is also defined there. This
will be followed by an assessment of validity in section III.C and an assessment of infringement
in section III.D. Section III.E will discuss the implications of the decisions for the outcome of the
case, including the costs.
17. The Court finds the patent valid but not infringed, applying the claim interpretation established
below.
III.B –TEACHING OF THE PATENT AND CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

18. EP 838 pertains to a glazing system. It aims to provide a safe means of securing glass panels
while being aesthetically pleasing and facilitating easy installation ([0006]). The claimed glazing
system according to the invention comprises male and female aluminium profiles designed to
safely and tightly secure glass panels. These profiles feature curved hooking parts, and the
male profile is designed to freely pivot about a fulcrum point (“C” in figure 8 of the patent)
where it rests on the female profile. The mechanism utilises rubber beading. According to the
description [0008] and [0010] rubber beading is forced in (by hand) between the glass and both
profiles after the glass panel is placed on the female profile and the male profile is inserted.
This action creates outward forces on the upper legs of the profiles, forcing them apart at the
top and at the same time, the turning mechanism at the pivotal fulcrum forces the locking
system formed by the hooked parts together, thus self-locking the profiles in position. In de-
scription [0011] any external forces due to for instance wind or vibrations, are described to
further tighten the fastening mechanism of the system to arrest the glass panel in position.
19. City Glass asserts that Maars infringe the patent with its Horizon Products.
23. The parties disagree on the interpretation of certain features of claim 1. The Court of Appeal
of the UPC (“CoA”) has set out the following principles regarding interpretation of a patent
claim according to Art. 69 EPC.1 The patent claim is not only the starting point, but the
decisive basis for determining the protective scope of a European patent. The interpretation
of a patent claim does not depend solely on the strict, literal meaning of the wording used (…).
Rather, the description and the drawings must always be used as explanatory aids for the
interpretation of the patent claim and not only to resolve any ambiguities in the patent claim.
However, this does not mean that the patent claim merely serves as a guideline and that its
subject-matter also extends to what, after examination of the description and drawings,
appears to be the subject-matter for which the patent proprietor seeks protection.
The CoA also clarified (i) that the principles for interpreting a patent claim apply equally to the
assessment of the infringement and to the validity of a European patent and (ii) that a patent
must be interpreted from the point of view of the average person skilled in the art (the “skilled
person”).
24. The parties did not debate or define the skilled person. The Court assumes the skilled person
to be a mechanical engineer. For this decision, the interpretation of features 1.4 and 1.6 are
relevant.
Interpretation of feature 1.4
1.4. said grooved rubber beading being forced in between the glass panel and the profiles (1, 2) and
creating outward forces on the upper legs of the profiles (1, 2) forcing them apart,
25. Parties agree that the "grooved rubber beading" as functional elements typically consists of
separate pieces of rubber positioned on each side of the glass panel, interacting individually
with the glass and the adjacent profile (one piece with the glass and female profile, and another
piece with the glass and male profile). In dispute is whether feature 1.4 requires that rubber
beading is forced between the glass panel and both profiles, creating outward forces on both
sides.
1 Order CoA UPC, NanoString Technologies -v- 10x Genomics, UPC_CoA_335/2023, App_576355/2023 of 26 February
2024, as rectified by the order of 11 March 2024. See also G1/24, Enlarged Board of Appeal EPO.

26. The claim language of EP 838 refers to "a grooved rubber beading" in the singular. However,
the description and figures consistently depict and describe the process of inserting the rubber
beading "from both sides of the glass panel” (see [0007], Fig.7) or "between the Glass & Profiles
(both sides)" (in [0008]) after the assembly of the two profiles in figure 6. Figure 7 of EP 838
shows rubber beading being inserted from two distinct sides into the gaps between the glass
and the assembled male and female profiles. For the skilled person the wording of the claim
and the description thus leave no doubt that the claimed invention requires insertion of the
beading between the assembled profiles on both sides of the glass panel after placing the glass
panel.
Interpretation of feature 1.6
27. The interpretation of feature 1.6 is crucial in this case, both for infringement and validity.
1.6. adapted such that the turning movements provided by said outward forces and external forces
at the pivotal fulcrum forces the locking mechanism together to further tighten the locking mecha-
nism in order to arrest the glass panel in position.
The parties disagree on the interpretation of ‘turning movements’ and whether these need to
be provided by both ‘said outward forces’ and ‘external forces’ at the pivotal fulcrum. City
Glass asserts that ‘turning movement’ should be understood to mean a movement, i.e. a mo-
tion, and not merely a ‘turning moment’, i.e. a torque (a force). Maars argue that this phrase
requires only a turning moment, as mentioned in [0010].
28. The term “turning movements” in the patent refers to the rotational or pivoting motion of the
aluminium profiles in the self-locking glazing system of EP 838. This motion occurs at the piv-
otal fulcrum, referred to as “C” in figure 8 of the patent, replicated below for easy reference
with annotations and coloring (blue for the male profile and pink for the female profile) intro-
duced by City Glass (figure 4 in the statement of claim). The male profile rotates clockwise
about the fulcrum in response to outward forces on its upper portion (“F” in figure 8), exerting
a locking force (“P”) in the example shown in figure 8 of EP 838. The effect of the outward force
and the turning movement is thus to force the locking mechanism together and to (further)
tighten the locking mechanism, arresting the glass panel in position. The skilled person will also
appreciate that outward forces can only create a turning movement/rotation of the male pro-
file. The patent teaches that the female profile is screwed/fixed to the underlying surface so
that no rotation is possible. The claim (in particular feature 1.6) hence refers to ‘turning move-
ments provided by (..) forces (…) at the pivotal fulcrum. Only the male profile is designed to
pivot about the fulcrum point, which rests on the (static) female profile of the glazing system
(see figure 8).

29. The Court agrees with City Glass that the skilled person will interpret feature 1.6 such that an
actual movement is implied by the term ‘turning movements’. This follows firstly from the fact
that in the description both ‘turning movement’ and ‘turning moment’ are mentioned. The
skilled person thus understands that the wording ‘turning movement’ in the claim is a deliber-
ate choice for ‘movement’ instead of ‘moment’. Furthermore, the effect of the turning, namely
to ‘further tighten’ the locking mechanism, also suggests a movement created by the forces
rather than merely a torque/moment. The skilled person also understands that, due to the
fixed position of the female profile, an outward force on the upper leg of the female profile
can create a moment or torque on the (lower part of) the female profile, but this will not result
in a movement as required by the claim.
30. According to the claim, turning movements can be created both by ‘outward forces’ (which
clearly refers to feature 1.4, the beads being forced in) and by ‘external forces’. This is evident
from the word ‘and’ in feature 1.6. Examples of external forces are mentioned in [0011] to be
wind or vibrations and are consequently to be understood as forces that occur after assembly
of the glazing system. With City Glass, the Court agrees that the skilled person will appreciate
that external forces are incidental and may not occur (hence ‘any’ before ‘external forces’ in
[0011]). However, in case external forces are present, the skilled person will understand the
claim and the teaching of the patent such that also these external forces create a movement
that further tightens the locking mechanism of the invention.
31. Thus, the turning movements of feature 1.6 are in fact the leveraging action initiated by the
outward forces or external forces on the upper parts of the profiles, causing rotation (of the
male profile) about the fulcrum, which translates into the (further) tightening of the curved
hooking parts, securing the glass. The presence of this specific mechanism involving turning
movements about a pivotal fulcrum in response to also external forces is a key feature of
EP 838. The skilled person understands this from [0011] of the patent:
“[0011] (…) In this arrangement any external forces applied due to conditions like wind or vibrations
caused by physical movements whose action may act to dislodge the Glass from its set position only
acts to further tighten the fastening mechanism of this system to arrest the Glass panel in position.”
32. Lastly, it is in dispute – in relation to insufficiency of disclosure - whether the external forces of
feature 1.6 refer to outward forces only (City Glass’ position) or should be understood to in-
clude inward forces as well (Maars’ position). In the patent specification inward directed forces
on the upper legs of the profiles are not mentioned anywhere. On the contrary, the invention,
particularly the turning movements, described in the patent are those created by outward
forces only which result in a further tightening of the locking mechanism. The skilled person
will thus understand the claim to be restricted to outwardly directed forces.

III.C – VALIDITY
Sufficiency of disclosure
33. The Court understands Maars to argue that there is no enabling disclosure of a self-locking
mechanism which tightens further when a leftward directed external force F (marked in yellow
in the picture below from Maars’ rejoinder/reply in the counterclaim)) acts on the glazing sys-
tem. Such force would create an inward turning movement of the upper leg of the male profile
and possibly an upward movement of the leg of the female profile on which the glass rests.
The hooking parts would then tend to move apart rather than further tighten, according to
Maars. This also applies to inward forces created on the upper legs of both profiles.
34. As discussed above at the claim construction of feature 1.6., the skilled person understands
from the disclosure of the patent specification, that the turning movements of the claim refer
to movement of the male profile only because of the way the pivotal fulcrum is designed in
combination with the fact that the female profile is fixed to the underlying surface. Rotation of
the female profile does not make technical sense because it cannot rotate when an outward
(or inward) force is applied and consequently there can be no loosening of the locking
mechanism due to such supposed rotation and no insufficiency of disclosure therof.
35. Furthermore, the disclosure of the patent only pertains to outward forces and not to inward
forces on the legs of the profiles, as Maars wrongly assume. Below two figures (11 on the left
and 12 on the right) are reproduced from City Glass’ reply/defence in the counterclaim. In case
a leftward external movement (e.g. wind) is applied to the glazing system (hence in the
direction of the yellow arrow above and the direction of the small blue arrows in the
photograph depicted as figure 12 on the right below), almost all force is applied to the glass
because of its size relative to the surface of the profile.

36. Such force may be transferred partly to the profile, resulting in an outward force on the upper
leg of the female profile (which is on the left in the system depicted in figure 12). As discussed,
this will not result in any loosening or tightening of the locking mechanism because the female
profile is fixed. In case of an outward external force in the other direction (depicted by the blue
arrow in City Glass’ figure 11 depicted on the left above), this can result in an outward force
on the upper leg of the male profile, which force does result in a rotational movement that
further tightens the locking system according to the claimed invention.
37. T(his feature of t)he claim, when interpreted correctly considering the description and draw-
ings and not in a way that does not make technical sense, provides the skilled person with all
necessary information to implement the invention. The system is only required to tighten un-
der outward forces that result in the specified turning movement about the pivotal fulcrum,
not under all conceivable force directions. The skilled person, being a mechanical engineer,
would readily understand how to design the profiles to avoid loosening, as the female profile
is fixed in the preferred embodiment.

Novelty
- NZ 564
38. For the assessment of novelty the Court applies the so-called ‘gold standard’: a prior art dis-
closure is novelty destroying in case the skilled person would derive the claimed invention di-
rectly and unambiguously using his common general knowledge, from the prior disclosure,
whereby implicitly disclosed subject-matter, i.e. matter that is a clear and unambiguous con-
sequence of what is explicitly mentioned, shall also be considered as part of its content.
39. Maars’ novelty attack based on NZ 564 fails. Figures 1 and 3 of NZ 564 as annotated by Maars
in its statement of defence/counterclaim, as well as figure 3 of NZ 564 annotated by City Glass
are depicted below.

40. In the system of NZ 564 the male profile has a plurality of ‘teeth’ (23) to accommodate for
different thicknesses of the glass. NZ 564 teaches that these are provided in a bevelled fashion
so that they can be slid over the tooth 19 of the base section 10 (the female profile) as the
glazing rim is assembled (NZ 564, p. 3, l.26-29). This can involve a slight tilting of the two mem-
bers/limbs (profiles) of the glazing system of NZ 564, which are at (substantially) right angles
to each other when installed. The passage from the disclosure of NZ 564 referred to, is quoted
below:

‘By providing the teeth in the bevelled fashion shown in Figures 1 and 2, it will be noted that the
teeth 23 of the locking section 20 can be slid over the tooth 19 of the base section 10 as the glaz-
ing trim is assembled.’ (NZ 564, p. 3, l.26-29)
41. Whether the upstanding flange 16 of the female profile can be considered to disclose the piv-
otal fulcrum of the patent, can remain undecided, as features 1.4 and 1.6 of EP 262 are not
anticipated for the following reasons. In NZ 564, the rubber beading on the female profile is
pre-mounted, and only the rubber beading between the male profile of the glass is forced in
after the glass panel is mounted. Feature 1.4 is thus not met. Unlike the teaching of feature
1.6, a turning movement of the male profile by (outward) external forces after assembly of the
glazing system disclosed in NZ 564 is not possible because both the male and female profile
rest on (whether fixed or not) the frame. Therefore, no rotation of the male profile after as-
sembly is possible.
42. NZ 564 therefore does not anticipate the claimed invention.
- US 962
43. Maars also rely on US 962, asserting that this destroys novelty. As can be seen from the (anno-
tated) figures from this prior art document, reproduced below (taken from City Glass’ reply/de-
fence to the counterclaim), the profiles of the glazing system disclosed in US 962 do not have
curved hooked parts as required by feature 1.5 of the patent. Also feature 1.4 is not met be-
cause the rubber beading, referred to as the sealing gasket 6 in US 962, is connected to the
system before the mounting of the glass panel on the side of the female profile (the ‘inner
flange’). Furthermore US 962 does not disclose feature 1.6 completely because no rotation of
the male profile around a pivotal fulcrum due to (outward) external forces is mentioned.
44. For the above reasons, also US 962 is not novelty destroying.
Inventive step
- DE 087
45. Maars’ final validity attack is that the patent is not inventive starting from DE 087 in combina-
tion with US 205 and/or common general knowledge (CGK). Maars assert that the only feature
of claim one that is not disclosed in DE 087, is feature 1.1 because the profile in DE 087 is made
of PVC and not of aluminium as required by feature 1.1 of the claim, which is obvious for the
skilled person to change.

46. The annotated figures shown below are reproduced from Maars’ SoD/counterclaim (with red
letters) and from City Glass’ reply/ defence to the counterclaim (with blue coloring on the male
profile).
47. DE 087 does not disclose feature 1.4 according to the claim construction established above.
This feature requires insertion of the beading between the assembled profiles on both sides of
the glass panel after placing the glass panel. Also, Maars only asserts disclosure of feature 1.4
in DE 087 if this feature were interpreted as including pre-mounting a rubber beading on the
profile of both profiles, as is the case in DE 087 (Maars’ SoD/counterclaim par. 147).
48. In addition, also this prior art document does not disclose feature 1.6 fully. DE 087 does not
disclose, either explicitly or implicitly, a glazing system wherein external forces acting after as-
sembly induce a further pivotal movement about a fulcrum to tighten the locking mechanism.
Maars also did not assert that this is disclosed, but advocate a different interpretation of feature 1.6
49. It is not argued, or plausible, how the skilled person would (or even be inclined to) amend the
glazing system of DE 087 in such a way to come to the claimed invention, overcoming the dis-
tinguishing features 1.1, 1.4 and 1.6., without inventive skills.

Finding on validity
50. The conclusion from the above is that the patent is sufficiently disclosed, novel and inventive
and thus valid.

III.D – INFRINGEMENT
51. The allegedly infringing products do not meet features 1.4 and 1.6 as interpreted above. In the
Horizon Products one of two rubber strips/beads is pre-mounted on the profile before a glass
panel is placed, whereas feature 1.4 requires both rubber beads to be forced in after placing
the glass panel between the profiles on the female profile. City Glass does not contest that
only the rubber strip on one side is forced in/placed after mounting the glass panel but argues
infringement by equivalence of this feature: the technical effect of self-locking of EP 838 is also
achieved and in the same way if the rubber beading is forced between the glass panel and the
male profile only.
52. It is not necessary to decide on equivalent infringement of feature 1.4 because also feature 1.6
is not present in the Horizon products. Even if City Glass is followed in its statement that a
fulcrum is present in the Horizon Products, namely formed by upward projection of the female
profile (see the picture below reproduced from City Glass’ reply, with the female profile de-
picted in pink and the male profile shown blue), external forces cannot create a turning move-
ment further tightening the locking mechanism as required by feature 1.6 as interpreted
above.
The Horizon Products feature both a self-locking mechanism where the curved hooked parts
of the female and male profile interlock, as well as what parties refer to as a ‘click lock’ and
counter-lock on the male profile which engage an upright part of the female profile. Both are
shown below, the first illustration showing the self-locking mechanism reproduced from the
statement of claim and the other one from the statement of defence.

At the time of the assembly of a Horizon Product rotation of the male profile around the pivotal
fulcrum is possible. However once the Horizon Product is assembled, further movement and
tightening of the self-locking system is not possible because this is prevented by the lower nose
of the male profile referred to as ‘counter clock’ in the illustrations. Therefore feature 1.6 if
not met. City Glass has also not argued that this feature is infringed by equivalence, and the
Court also does not see how such argument could be successful.
53. Maars therefore do not infringe the patent with their Horizon Products.

III.E – CONCLUSION AND COSTS
54. As the patent is decided to be valid, the counterclaim for revocation will be dismissed. The
same applies to the infringement action as the allegedly infringing Horizon Products do not fall
within the scope of protection of the patent. With this outcome any other issues in dispute do
not need to be addressed. Particularly, given the finding that the trading of the Horizon Prod-
ucts does not infringe the patent, it is unnecessary for the Court to decide on the separate
defence raised by Maars Holding B.V. regarding the nature of its activities.
55. By email of 20 June 2025 the parties informed the Court that they agree on the costs as follows:
This email is to confirm that the parties have reached agreement. It has been agreed that if either party is
awarded its full costs, it will be entitled to seek recovery of the following, up to and including the Oral Hearing at first instance:
A. €38,000 in legal costs (representing the maximum amount of recoverable representation costs ac-
cording to the Scale of ceilings for recoverable costs for a claim valued at €250,000); and
B. the respective court fees paid by the party awarded its costs (being €6,600 in respect of City Glass’
infringement action, or €11,000 in respect of the Maars Defendants’ counterclaim for revocation).
If following the Oral Hearing the Court awards a party only a portion of its costs, that party would be entitled
to recover only the relevant proportion of the total recoverable costs under (i) and (ii) above. The agreement
is without prejudice to either party’s arguments that the other party should not be entitled to recover their
costs (or court fee) even if successful.
56. The court will follow this agreement and may decide on the costs now. Separate proceedings
on the costs are therefore not necessary.
57. During the oral hearing the parties clarified that the amount of EUR 38,000.- is meant as the
combined amount for representation for the claim and the counterclaim. It was also pointed
out that, in case one party was successful in only one of the actions, only a portion of the costs
should be awarded. The parties also clarified that the outcome of the infringement action is
leading, understandably as the economic focus of the case was on a finding of infringement (of
a valid patent).
58. The Court interprets this to mean that, now that Maars are the successful parties in the in-
fringement action, costs will be awarded to Maars. The total amount will be reduced by 50%
because Maars were unsuccessful in the counterclaim action. The amount to be awarded to
Maars collectively is therefore EUR 19,000.- in legal costs and EUR 5,500 in court fees, totalling
EUR 24,500.-.
59. City Glass deposited EUR 19,000 for the payment of legal costs (see 14. above). It seems logical
to use this deposit to pay part of these costs. A party that wishes to have the deposit released
to Maars for this purpose, may make an application.
60. Maars requests payment of costs ‘plus interest from 14 days after the judgment to be given in
these proceedings, or at least from a date to be determined by the Court, if and to the extent
that City Glass has not paid these costs before then.’ The court finds reason to extend the re-
quested term of two weeks wherein payment should be effected, to three weeks. The request
to order the payment of interest in case of late payment is not granted because there is no
legal basis for this in the rules and regulations of the UPC. Such interest is governed by the
national laws.

IV. DECISION
For all these reasons and after having heard the parties, the Court
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;
D. In as far as necessary, declares this decision on legal costs and court fees immediately en-
forceable.

INFORMATION ABOUT APPEAL
An appeal against this decision may be lodged at the Court of Appeal, by any party which has
been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions, within two months of the date of its
notification (Art. 73(1) UPCA, R. 220.1(a), 224.1(a) RoP).

INFORMATION ABOUT ENFORCEMENT (ART. 82 UPCA, ART. ART. 37(2) UPCS, R. 118.8, 158.2, 354,
355.4 ROP)
An authentic copy of the enforceable decision or order will be issued by the Deputy-Registrar
upon request of the enforcing party, R. 69 RegR.