UPC CoA 5/2025

Vor dem UPC: Juul Labs Group (33 Verfahren)·Altria Group (45 Verfahren)

• 2026-01-09
  Withdrawal (RoP265)Öffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal permitted Juul Labs International, Inc. to withdraw its appeal against the Central Division Paris revocation decision (UPC_CFI_309/2023, 5 November 2024), which had revoked EP 3 498 115 in multiple UPC member states. The withdrawal followed the EPO Boards of Appeal dismissing Juul Labs' appeal on 17 October 2025, confirming the EPO Opposition Division's revocation of 4 March 2024. NJOY had no legitimate interest in the appeal being decided. Court fees were reimbursed under the pre-2026 rate.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)

  • Withdrawal of appeal under R.265 RoP
  • Reimbursement of court fees under R.370.9 RoP
  • Effect of EPO Boards of Appeal dismissal on UPC proceedings
• 2025-04-30
  Öffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: Court of Appeal order staying appeal proceedings in a revocation action concerning a patent for vaping/e-cigarette technology. The patent had been revoked at first instance (Central Division Paris). Juul Labs appealed and applied for a stay pending parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings, which were accelerated with oral proceedings scheduled for 17 October 2025. NJOY agreed to the stay. The Court of Appeal stayed proceedings under R. 295(a) RoP as the EPO proceedings could be expected to conclude relatively quickly.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)

  • Stay of proceedings (R. 295 RoP)
  • Parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings
  • Art. 33(10) UPCA
• 2025-04-25
  Application RoP262.1 (b)Öffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: Court of Appeal granted Nicoventures Trading Limited's request for access to written pleadings and evidence from appeal proceedings (Rule 262.1(b) RoP) involving Juul Labs and NJOY (nicotine product patents). Access was granted subject to conditions: Nicoventures may not file the pleadings with other courts (e.g. EPO Boards of Appeal) until the UPC appeal is closed, though it may use the arguments or prior art independently. Personal data in the documents was to be redacted by the Registry. Blanket requests for future documents were held inadmissible.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)

  • Public access to written pleadings under Rule 262.1(b) RoP
  • Conditions on access to protect integrity of proceedings
  • Blanket requests for future documents inadmissible
  • Personal data protection in disclosed pleadings