UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 307/2024

—·EP2875740: Vaporizer

Case details
Status
—
Action
Revocation
Category
Main Revocation Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Hon.-Prof. Dr. Henrik Holzapfel (McDermott Will & Schulte); Mathias Karlhuber (Cohausz & Florack)
Respondents
Reps: Bernhard Thum (Thum & Partner / Thum, Mötsch, Weickert Patentanwälte PartG mbB); Tobias Wuttke (Bardehle Pagenberg)
Division
Paris CD
Judges
Technology
Consumer Goods · E-Cigarettes · Pharmaceutical & Medical
Language
—
First decided
Nov 29, 2024
Claims
At issueall
Maintainedall
Notes: Paris Central Division dismissed revocation action against EP 2 875 740 B1; patent found novel and inventive; maintained as granted; no specific claim numbers enumerated in operative part.
Decisions
  • 2024-11-29
    Patent maintainedRevocation meritsRevocation Action

    The Paris Central Division dismissed NJOY Netherlands B.V.'s revocation action against EP 2 875 740 B1 (a patent owned by VMR Products LLC relating to electronic vapour products/e-cigarettes with a magnetic cartomizer retention mechanism). The Court found the patent novel and inventive over the asserted prior art combinations (Cross + DiFonzo, Pan + DiFonzo, and common general knowledge). The patent is maintained as granted. NJOY as the unsuccessful party bears the costs up to a ceiling of EUR 500,001.

    Legal issues:Revocation action — novelty and inventive stepCommon general knowledgeLate-filed documentsAssessment of prior art combinations
Documents
  • Decision_571537_23-2%20anonymized%20%281%29.pdf2024-11-29EN
Plain-English summary

NJOY Netherlands B.V. sought revocation of EP 2 875 740 B1 (VMR Products LLC / Juul Labs subsidiary), a patent for an e-cigarette vaporizer with a magnetic cartomizer retention mechanism, before the Paris Central Division. The court dismissed the revocation action, finding the claimed magnetic retention features (dual magnets with opposite polarity, insulated from contacts) not disclosed or rendered obvious by the asserted combinations of Cross, Pan, and DiFonzo with or without CGK. The patent was maintained as granted and NJOY was ordered to bear costs.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Common general knowledge is information commonly known from written sources or practical experience and does not necessarily include all publicly available knowledge

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Note: Paris Central Division defined CGK as knowledge directly available from familiar sources in the specific technical field; knowledge that is merely publicly available but not generally common does not qualify.

  • Features 1.7, 1.7.1, 1.8, 1.8.1 and 1.8.2 (magnetic cartomizer retention) not disclosed by Cross or Pan, individually or combined with DiFonzo or CGK

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Note: Skilled person would not turn to DiFonzo (laptop accessories) when addressing problems in Pan or Cross (e-cigarettes), and adding an electromagnetic solution would introduce unwanted power consumption into a power-limited device.

  • DiFonzo teachings on electromagnets for laptop accessories would not be applied by a skilled person to a vaporizer due to power supply limitations

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Note: Power supply in a vaporizer is very limited; a skilled person would not adopt a solution that introduces additional power requirements (electromagnet) into a vaporizer.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Claim 1 obvious over Cross or Pan combined with DiFonzo

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Reason: No motivation found for skilled person to consult DiFonzo (laptop accessories field) when working in the e-cigarette field; the power consumption drawback of DiFonzo's electromagnetic solution would deter its application to vaporizers.

  • Claim 1 obvious over Pan combined with common general knowledge

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Reason: No evidence established that CGK included the specific magnetic cartomizer retention solution (chamber magnet plus additional chamber magnet with opposite polarity insulated from contacts) claimed in features 1.7–1.8.2.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Common general knowledge definition: information commonly known from written sources or practical experience in the relevant technical fieldCGK does not necessarily include all publicly available knowledgeProblem-solution approach applied: skilled person must have motivation to consult prior art from a different technical fieldPower consumption constraints relevant to assessing whether cross-field combination is obvious

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • CrossObviousness combination
  • PanObviousness combination
  • DiFonzoObviousness combination
Claim construction notes

Claim 1 requires a vaporizer with (inter alia) features 1.7–1.8.2: a chamber magnet proximate to the base end of the chamber (insulated from electrical contacts) and an additional chamber magnet with opposite polarity (also insulated) to secure the cartomizer. The court analysed these features feature-by-feature across the prior art, finding Pan discloses features 1.1–1.6 but not 1.7–1.8.2.