- 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 order rejecting Juul Labs International's appeal against the Court of First Instance order allowing rectification of the defendant's name in five revocation actions filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. (originally naming Juul Labs, Inc. instead of registered proprietor Juul Labs International, Inc.). The Court of Appeal held the rectification was permissible since the appellant was not unreasonably prejudiced. No costs order was made in this interlocutory appeal, to be deferred to the final merits decision. Appeal rejected.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Rectification of defendant's name (party substitution)
- Costs in interlocutory appeal (R. 242.1 RoP)
- E-cigarette / vaping device patents
- A32E2508BFBD5829DB775169D75B4D36_en.pdf2024-04-03EN