UPC CFI 309/2023
12. Sept. 2023·EP3498115 · VAPORIZATION DEVICE SYSTEMS AND METHODS
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 571669/2023
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent nichtig)VerfahrensartNichtigkeitKategorieHauptnichtigkeitsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- NJOY Netherlands B.V.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Henrik Holzapfel-McDermott Will & Schulte
- Mathias Karlhuber-Cohausz & Florack
- Laura Woll-McDermott Will & Schulte
- Diana Pisani-McDermott Will & Schulte
- Lisa Nassi-McDermott Will & Schulte
- Moritz-Melchior Bloser-Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB
Beklagte- Juul Labs, Inc.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Bernhard Thum-Thum & Partner
- Tobias Wuttke-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Tilman Müller-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Andreas Mötsch-Thum & Partner
- Jonas Weickert-Thum & Partner
- Division
- Paris CD
- Technologie
- Electrical engineeringElectrical machinery, apparatus, energy
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Other fieldsOther consumer goods
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 5. Nov. 2024
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 9. Juni 2025
- EPA-Einspruch
- Nicoventures Trading LimitedZulässig2022-05-31
| Patent nichtig | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Paris CD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter François Thomas | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Maximilian Haedicke | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Max Tilmann | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Altria Group (45 Verfahren)·Juul Labs Group (33 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 17 weitere Verfahren
UPC CFI 531/2026·UPC CFI 537/2026·UPC CFI 538/2026·UPC CoA 328/2025·UPC CFI 298/2025 und 12 weitere
5 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
UPC CFI 330/2023·APL 588420/2023·APL 588422/2023·APL 588423/2023·APL 588426/2023
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
- 2025-06-09
Zusammenfassung: Order of the Central Division (Paris Seat) on an application by Meissner Bolte law firm for access to written pleadings and evidence filed in revocation proceedings (ACT_571669/2023) between NJOY Netherlands B.V. and Juul Labs International, Inc. concerning EP 3 498 115. The Court granted the access request under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, finding that once first-instance proceedings have ended, the general public interest in understanding the decision outweighs confidentiality concerns.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Public access to pleadings Rule 262.1(b) RoP
- Balance of interests between transparency and integrity of proceedings
- Access post first-instance decision
- 2024-11-05Revocation ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Paris Central Division (Section 1) revoked European Patent EP 3 498 115 B1 (Juul Labs - vaping device cartridge) in full, with effect for Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. The Court found the patent invalid for added matter (Art. 138(1)(c) / Art. 123(2) EPC). All of Juul Labs' auxiliary requests to amend the patent were rejected. Juul Labs ordered to bear costs.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Revocation for added matter (Art. 123(2) EPC / Art. 138(1)(c) EPC)
- Claim interpretation (Art. 65.3 UPCA)
- Application to amend patent
- Person skilled in the art
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-02-09 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-02-09 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Applicant | 2026-02-09 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-03-17 | Nicht öffentlich |
| order | 2025-03-17 | Öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-03-17 | Nicht öffentlich |
| order | 2025-03-17 | Öffentlich |
| Template-Order | 2025-03-17 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2024-11-06 | Nicht öffentlich |
| order on patent | 2024-11-06 | Öffentlich |
NJOY Netherlands B.V. successfully revoked EP 3 498 115 B1 (Juul Labs International vaping device cartridge patent) before the Paris Central Division on grounds of added matter under Art. 138(1)(c) EPC / Art. 123(2) EPC. All of Juul Labs' twelve auxiliary amendment requests were rejected — most for failing to overcome the added matter defect, and auxiliary request (2)d additionally for being unclear, exceeding a reasonable number, and lacking supporting argument. The court confirmed that Art. 65(3) UPCA does not require evaluating partial allowability of amendment requests.
Patent EP 3 498 115 B1 invalid for added matter under Art. 123(2) EPC
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC; Art. 123(2) EPCHinweis: Paris Central Division (Section 1) found the patent added matter not disclosed in the parent application; all of Juul Labs' auxiliary requests to amend the patent were rejected.
Court may limit patent by amendment and revoke only in part under Art. 65(3) UPCA without being obliged to evaluate if amendment can be allowed in part
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65(3) UPCA; R. 50(2) RoPHinweis: Court held Art. 65(3) UPCA pertains only to the granted patent; within an amendment application, a claim set is either allowable as a whole or not — there is no obligation to evaluate partial allowability.
Auxiliary requests (2)a through (2)d to amend the patent to overcome added matter objection
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 50.2 RoP; R. 30.1(c) RoP; Art. 65(3) UPCABegründung: Most auxiliary requests rejected because the added matter defect was not overcome; auxiliary request (2)d was additionally rejected as unclear (no defined order for claim combinations), unreasonable in number (exceeding the 12-request limit treated as reasonable), and unsupported by argument.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
Claim interpretation identified as a question of law for the court at any stage of proceedings. The court construed the claims at issue to identify whether added matter was present by reference to the parent application European application 18000692.6.