2025-08-29 - LD The Hague - Maars et al. v. Maars et al.
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division
- Art:
- Proceeding Decision
- Parteien:
- CITY GLASS AND GLAZING PRIVATE LIMITED v. MAARS HOLDING B.V., MAARS PROJECTEN B.V., MAARS PARTITIONING SYSTEMS B.V., MAARS FRANCE
Kernaussage: Expired patent.
2025-08-29 - LD The Hague - Maars et al.
v.
Maars et al.
Expired patent. Final cost decision. Security for costs deposit
notable
The Hague LD held EP 1 651 838 (glazing system) valid but not infringed by Maars' Horizon Products. Turning movements in feature 1.6 requires actual rotation (not mere torque). Feature 1.4 requires rubber beading forced in on both sides after assembly. Patent survived sufficiency, novelty (NZ 562, US 205), and inventive step (DE 087) attacks. Counter-lock mechanism prevents post-assembly rotation, defeating infringement. Costs split 50% for mixed outcome. Confirmed UPC jurisdiction over expired patents under Art. 3(c) UPCA. Interest on late cost payment rejected as lacking UPC legal basis.
Stichwörter
R.3(c) UPCA
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Novelty attacks based on NZ 562 and US 205 failed. Features 1.4 and 1.6 not disclosed.”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Attack from DE 087 + US 205/CGK failed. No motivation to arrive at distinguishing features.”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“Claim limited to outward forces only. Female profile fixed, no loosening possible.”