- Case details
- StatusClaim dismissedActionAppealCategoryMain appeal
- Parties
- Claimants
- NJOY Netherlands B.V.Operating co.
Representatives- Hon.-Prof. Dr. Henrik Holzapfel-McDermott Will & Schulte
Respondents- Juul Labs International, Inc.Operating co.
Representatives- Bernhard Thum-Thum & Partner
- Jonas Weickert-Thum & Partner
- Andreas Mötsch-Thum & Partner
- Tobias Wuttke-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringElectrical machinery, apparatus, energy
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Other fieldsOther consumer goods
- Language
- —
- First decided
- Apr 3, 2024
- EPO Opposition
- Smokeless.world GmbHAdmissible2022-05-03
- Philip Morris Products S.A.Admissible2022-05-03
- Nicoventures Trading LimitedAdmissible2022-05-04
- STRAWMAN LIMITEDWithdrawn2022-05-04
- Nicoventures Trading LimitedAdmissible2022-05-31
- Philip Morris Products S.A.Admissible2022-03-08
- Smokeless.world GmbHAdmissible2022-03-08
- Nicoventures Trading LimitedAdmissible2022-03-09
- Nicoventures Trading LimitedAdmissible2022-08-17
- Smokeless.world GmbHAdmissible2022-08-23
- Nicoventures Trading LimitedAdmissible2021-10-27
- Smokeless.world GmbHAdmissible2021-10-27
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Judge Klaus Grabinski | Locked |
| Judge Peter Blok | Locked |
At the UPC: Altria Group (45 cases)·Juul Labs Group (33 cases)
This dispute contains 3 other proceedings
15 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
UPC CoA 328/2025·UPC CFI 298/2025·UPC CoA 237/2025·UPC CFI 135/2025·UPC CFI 129/2025 and 10 more
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Court of Appeal·2023
- 2024-04-03Appeal RoP220.2Public
Summary: Court of Appeal dismissed Juul Labs International Inc.'s appeal against five first-instance orders allowing NJOY Netherlands B.V. to rectify the incorrectly stated defendant name in five revocation actions (EP 3 498 115, EP 3 504 990, EP 3 504 989, EP 3 504 991, EP 3 430 921). The court held that despite the naming error, it should have been clear to the appellant that the actions were directed against it as the registered proprietor. No cost order was made as the appeal did not conclude the revocation actions.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Rectification of party name in revocation proceedings
- Unreasonable prejudice test for name rectification
- Costs in non-final appellate decisions (R. 242.1 RoP)
- B6EFB28B2527A879F7DD34B015EF8D43_en.pdf2024-04-03EN