Key takeaways
Claim interpretation
Feature 1.6 of claim 1 in the patent-in-suit (EP 1651838) was central to both infringement and validity. The dispute between the parties concerned, inter alia, the meaning of the wording “turning movements” in feature 1.6.
The opposing views:
o City Glass: “Turning movement” means an actual rotation (not just a torque).
o Maars: A turning moment/torque (force without necessary movement) suffices as a “turning movement”.
Court’s Interpretation:
For two reasons, the Court agreed with City Glass that “turning movements” implied “an actual movement”, not just torque. Firstly, the claim is, in the court’s opinion, a “deliberate choice” for ‘movement’ because the patent description distinguishes between “turning movement” and “turning moment”. Secondly, the claimed functionality of feature 1.6 (“… to further tighten the locking mechanism”) requires actual rotation, not just the existence of torque.
Practical implications:
The notion of a “deliberate choice” being reflected by a claim requires particular caution when adapting the description. If (potentially) claim-related embodiments or aspects are not deleted from the description, they may not be relied upon to interpret, especially to broaden the meaning of a claim feature. A simple illustration: suppose the claim is directed to a “nail.” Ordinarily, the description — as the patent’s own dictionary — might allow “nail” to be understood as encompassing “screw.” However, if the description explicitly distinguishes between nails and screws, the Court would treat the claim wording as a deliberate choice to exclude screws.
Division
LD The Hague
UPC number
UPC_CFI_684/2024
Type of proceedings
Decision
Parties
Claimant: City Glass and Glazing Private Limited
Defendants: MAARS HOLDING B.V.; MAARS PARTITIONING SYSTEMS B.V.; MAARS PROJECTEN B.V.; MAARS FRANCE
Patent(s)
EP 1651838
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 69 EPC, Art. 3 (c) UPCA
