UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Sep 12, 2023

UPC_CFI_310/2023

VAPORIZER

RevocationMain Revocation ActionParis CDRevocation—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
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