UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 308/2023

Sep 12, 2023·EP3456214 · VAPORIZER

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent revoked)
Action
Revocation
Category
Main revocation action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Paris CD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
  • Other fields
    Other consumer goods
Language
English
First decided
Jan 22, 2024
EPO Opposition
  • Nicoventures Holdings Limited2021-08-18
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Paris CDLockedLocked
Judge Paolo CatallozziLockedLocked
Judge Tatyana ZhilovaLockedLocked
Judge Max TilmannLockedLocked

At the UPC: Altria Group (45 cases)·VMR Products LLC (13 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 12 other proceedings

UPC CFI 313/2026·UPC CoA 257/2025·UPC CFI 167/2025·UPC CFI 164/2025·UPC CoA 71/2025 and 7 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Paris CD·2023

Decisions
  • 2024-11-27
    Revocation ActionPublic

    Summary: The Central Division Paris revoked European patent EP 3 456 214 (relating to a vaporizer/e-cigarette device) in its entirety. The patent was found to lack inventive step over the prior art. All auxiliary requests for partial maintenance were rejected as either unsubstantiated or unreasonable in number. The defendant (patent proprietor VMR Products LLC) was ordered to bear the litigation costs.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Front-loaded procedure and admission of new evidence in revocation
    • Claim interpretation and common general knowledge
    • Inventive step assessment
    • Admission of new invalidity grounds
    • Reasonableness of number of auxiliary requests under Rule 30(1)(c) RoP
  • 2024-01-22
    Revocation ActionPublic

    Summary: The Paris Central Division issued a procedural order in the NJOY v. VMR Products revocation action, ruling on the date of service of VMR's defence to revocation, determining that service was effected on 13 December 2023 when the Registry notified the corrected defence to NJOY.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Date of service of defence to revocation
    • Rule 9 RoP: court declaration on procedural time limits
Documents
Show all 207 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-01-29Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-29Not public
Application document Applicant2026-01-29Not public
Decision anonymized - 27.11.20242024-11-28Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-11-27Not public
DecisionOutcome2024-11-27Not public
decision2024-11-27Public
decision2024-11-27Not public
Confirmation of appointment - audio record2024-11-04Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-11-04Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

NJOY Netherlands brought a revocation action against VMR Products' EP 3 456 214 (a vaporizer/e-cigarette device patent) before the Paris Central Division. The court found the entire patent invalid for lack of inventive step over 'Pan' and related prior art, rejected all auxiliary requests as either unsubstantiated or unreasonable in number, and revoked the patent in its entirety across all Contracting Member States. VMR Products was ordered to bear the litigation costs.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • EP 3 456 214 lacks inventive step over the prior art

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC; Art. 138(1)(a) EPC

    Note: The Central Division Paris found all claims (including those in auxiliary requests) obvious over 'Pan' and other prior art; the patent was revoked in its entirety.

  • New invalidity grounds and new novelty-destroying documents may not be introduced in subsequent written acts beyond the Statement of Revocation

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 30(1) RoP; front-loaded procedure principles

    Note: This procedural headnote limits the defendant's ability to introduce new prior art after the initial pleading phase.

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

  • Patent valid: claim 1 and all dependent claims are not obvious

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Reason: All claims found obvious; dependent claims 13 and 14 were also anticipated or obvious over 'Pan'.

  • Partial maintenance: patent should be maintained to the extent of one or more dependent claims in combination with claim 1 of proposed amendments

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65(3) UPCA; R.30(1)(c) RoP; R.50(2) RoP

    Reason: Request was not substantiated (no explanation why particular combinations would support validity) and was unreasonable in number under R.30(1)(c) and R.50(2) RoP.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Front-loaded procedure: claimant in revocation must specify all invalidity grounds and prior art in the Statement of Revocation; new grounds and novelty-destroying documents may not be introduced in subsequent briefs unless responsive to defendant's defenceProportionality and procedural efficiency: parties should not be burdened with overly detailed allegations of undisputed mattersPatent specification or published patent application can indicate common general knowledge when the author states the teaching is widely knownPartial maintenance request must be substantiated and reasonable in number; bare unsubstantiated reference to combinations is insufficient (R.30(1)(c), R.50(2) RoP)

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • Pan (prior art document — vaporizer/e-cigarette with airflow sensor and liquid)Novelty-destroying