UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 309/2023

Sep 12, 2023·EP3498115 · VAPORIZATION DEVICE SYSTEMS AND METHODS

Action number: ACT 571669/2023

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent revoked)
Action
Revocation
Category
Main revocation action
Parties
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
Nov 5, 2024
Last decision
Jun 9, 2025
EPO Opposition
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 François ThomasLockedLocked
Judge Maximilian HaedickeLockedLocked
Judge Max TilmannLockedLocked

At the UPC: Altria Group (45 cases)·Juul Labs Group (33 cases)

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

This dispute contains 17 other proceedings

UPC CFI 531/2026·UPC CFI 537/2026·UPC CFI 538/2026·UPC CoA 328/2025·UPC CFI 298/2025 and 12 more

5 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 330/2023·APL 588420/2023·APL 588422/2023·APL 588423/2023·APL 588426/2023

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Paris CD·2023

Decisions
  • 2025-06-09
    Public

    Summary: Order of the Central Division (Paris Seat) on an application by Meissner Bolte law firm for access to written pleadings and evidence filed in revocation proceedings (ACT_571669/2023) between NJOY Netherlands B.V. and Juul Labs International, Inc. concerning EP 3 498 115. The Court granted the access request under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, finding that once first-instance proceedings have ended, the general public interest in understanding the decision outweighs confidentiality concerns.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Public access to pleadings Rule 262.1(b) RoP
    • Balance of interests between transparency and integrity of proceedings
    • Access post first-instance decision
  • 2024-11-05
    Revocation ActionPublic

    Summary: Paris Central Division (Section 1) revoked European Patent EP 3 498 115 B1 (Juul Labs - vaping device cartridge) in full, with effect for Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. The Court found the patent invalid for added matter (Art. 138(1)(c) / Art. 123(2) EPC). All of Juul Labs' auxiliary requests to amend the patent were rejected. Juul Labs ordered to bear costs.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Revocation for added matter (Art. 123(2) EPC / Art. 138(1)(c) EPC)
    • Claim interpretation (Art. 65.3 UPCA)
    • Application to amend patent
    • Person skilled in the art
Documents
Show all 255 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-02-09Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-09Not public
Application document Applicant2026-02-09Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-03-17Not public
order2025-03-17Public
Outcome of the Order2025-03-17Not public
order2025-03-17Public
Template-Order2025-03-17Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-11-06Not public
order on patent2024-11-06Public
Plain-English summary

NJOY Netherlands B.V. successfully revoked EP 3 498 115 B1 (Juul Labs International vaping device cartridge patent) before the Paris Central Division on grounds of added matter under Art. 138(1)(c) EPC / Art. 123(2) EPC. All of Juul Labs' twelve auxiliary amendment requests were rejected — most for failing to overcome the added matter defect, and auxiliary request (2)d additionally for being unclear, exceeding a reasonable number, and lacking supporting argument. The court confirmed that Art. 65(3) UPCA does not require evaluating partial allowability of amendment requests.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Patent EP 3 498 115 B1 invalid for added matter under Art. 123(2) EPC

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138(1)(c) EPC; Art. 123(2) EPC

    Note: Paris Central Division (Section 1) found the patent added matter not disclosed in the parent application; all of Juul Labs' auxiliary requests to amend the patent were rejected.

  • Court may limit patent by amendment and revoke only in part under Art. 65(3) UPCA without being obliged to evaluate if amendment can be allowed in part

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 65(3) UPCA; R. 50(2) RoP

    Note: Court held Art. 65(3) UPCA pertains only to the granted patent; within an amendment application, a claim set is either allowable as a whole or not — there is no obligation to evaluate partial allowability.

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

  • Auxiliary requests (2)a through (2)d to amend the patent to overcome added matter objection

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 50.2 RoP; R. 30.1(c) RoP; Art. 65(3) UPCA

    Reason: Most auxiliary requests rejected because the added matter defect was not overcome; auxiliary request (2)d was additionally rejected as unclear (no defined order for claim combinations), unreasonable in number (exceeding the 12-request limit treated as reasonable), and unsupported by argument.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Added matter (Art. 123(2) EPC) as ground for revocation under Art. 138(1)(c) EPCArt. 65(3) UPCA applies only to granted patent; no obligation to assess partial allowability of amendment applicationAmendment claim set must be clear, precise, and reasonable in number (R. 50.2 RoP)Twelve conditional auxiliary requests treated as upper limit of reasonable numberClaim interpretation is a question of law for the court, performable at any stage

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

Claim interpretation identified as a question of law for the court at any stage of proceedings. The court construed the claims at issue to identify whether added matter was present by reference to the parent application European application 18000692.6.