1. 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:
- City Glass: "Turning movement" means an actual
rotation (not just a torque).
- 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.
