UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 310/2023

Sep 12, 2023·EP3613453 · VAPORIZER

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent partly 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, 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 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
  • 2025-01-22
    Revocation ActionPublic

    Summary: The Paris Central Division partially revoked EP 3 613 453 B1, finding that claim 1 lacked inventive step; the patent was maintained in amended form based on the independent validity of claims 6, 7 and 8 in combination with claim 1 as granted. Each party bore its own costs.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Inventive step
    • Common general knowledge
    • Late filed documents
    • Validity of dependent claims
    • Auxiliary requests
Documents
Show all 250 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-02-09Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-09Not public
Application document Applicant2026-02-09Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-03-28Not public
procedural order2025-03-28Public
Decision anonymized - 571730 - 22.01.20252025-01-22Not public
DecisionOutcome2025-01-22Not public
Decision2025-01-22Not public
Decision2025-01-22Public
Template-Order2025-01-22Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

NJOY Netherlands challenged VMR Products' EP 3 613 453 (vaporizer/e-cigarette device) before the Paris Central Division. The court found claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 invalid for lack of inventive step over prior art (Pan, Cross, Griffith and common general knowledge), but maintained the patent in part based on the independent inventive step of dependent claims 6, 7, and 8 in combination with claim 1 as granted. Each party bore its own costs given partial success on each side.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Claim 1 of EP 3 613 453 lacks inventive step over prior art

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

    Note: The Paris Central Division found claim 1 obvious; dependent claims 2-5 also independently lacked inventive step.

  • Dependent claims 6, 7 and 8 individually possess inventive step and can acquire independent validity in combination with claim 1 as granted

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65(3) UPCA

    Note: The court upheld the patent in part based on these claims, even though claim 1 was invalid.

  • Defendant's alternative request to maintain the patent with respect to one or more dependent claims is a sufficiently clear request even if no specific claim combination is specified, and requires the court to examine which claims remain valid

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

    Note: This headnote principle required the court to conduct a full dependent-claim analysis.

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

  • Patent should be maintained as granted (claim 1 valid)

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Reason: Claim 1 found to lack inventive step; the prior art document 'Pan' or 'Cross' in combination with 'Griffith' or common general knowledge rendered claim 1 obvious.

  • Auxiliary requests to amend the patent overcome invalidity of claim 1

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Reason: The auxiliary requests did not overcome the invalidity of claim 1.

  • Dependent claims 2, 3, 4 and 5 have independent validity

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Reason: These claims also independently lacked inventive step.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Defendant's alternative request for partial maintenance without specifying a particular claim is admissible and obliges the court to examine which dependent claims remain valid (Art. 65(3) UPCA)Dependent claims can acquire independent validity in combination with an invalid independent claimCommon general knowledge of on/off switches and activation buttons in electronic devices supports obviousness of such features

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on
References cited and the role they played.
  • Pan (prior art document — e-cigarette/vaporizer with airflow sensor activation)Obviousness combination
  • Cross (prior art document — vaporizer device with microcontroller and user activation switch)Obviousness combination
  • Griffith (prior art document — electronic smoking device with pushbutton activation)Obviousness combination