UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 312/2023

Sep 12, 2023·EP3504989 · VAPORIZATION DEVICE SYSTEMS AND METHODS

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as amended)
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
Feb 28, 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
  • 2025-02-28
    Revocation ActionPublic

    Summary: Decision on the revocation action by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International Inc. concerning EP 3 504 989 (vaping/e-cigarette device). The court maintained the patent in amended form (Auxiliary Request 1, filed 22 July 2024) with effect for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. The patent as granted was found invalid. Each party bears its own costs since both parties partially succeeded.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • Revocation action
    • Claim interpretation
    • Clarity
    • Added matter
    • Admission of auxiliary claims
    • Patent maintained in amended form (Art. 138(3) EPC)
Documents
Show all 243 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2025-11-24Not public
Receipt2025-03-28Not public
Application for a cost decision2025-03-28Not public
Exhibit MWE 512025-03-28Not public
decision2025-02-28Public
Hearing-Dates2024-11-12Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-09-04Not public
order closing workflows2024-09-04Public
Outcome of the Order2024-09-04Not public
order closing workflow2024-09-04Public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

NJOY Netherlands challenged Juul Labs' EP 3 504 989 (vaporization device systems) before the Paris Central Division. The court found the patent as granted invalid but maintained it in amended form based on Auxiliary Request 1 filed during the proceedings. Both parties succeeded in part, so each bore their own costs. Several late-filed submissions and auxiliary requests from both parties were excluded from the proceedings.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • EP 3 504 989 as granted is invalid (grounds not fully visible in excerpt but patent was found invalid as granted)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 138 EPC

    Note: NJOY succeeded in having the granted patent found invalid.

  • Patent valid as amended by Auxiliary Request 1 (filed 22 July 2024)

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 138 EPC

    Note: The amended claims survived the invalidity attack; patent maintained for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden.

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

  • Defendant's submission of 31 May 2024 (inadmissible late submission)

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 9.2 RoP

    Reason: Not admitted into proceedings.

  • Auxiliary Requests IIA, VIIA, VIIIA, IXA and XIIA filed on 13 November 2024

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 50.2 RoP

    Reason: Not admitted into proceedings (late filed).

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Claim interpretation and clarity are threshold issues in revocation proceedingsAdded matter under Art. 123(2) EPC assessed for both granted claims and proposed amendmentsLate auxiliary requests may be rejected as inadmissible; reasonable number of conditional amendments required (R.50(2) RoP)Where both parties partially succeed (patent invalid as granted but maintained as amended), each party bears its own costs (Art. 69(2) UPCA)

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The decision's keywords highlight claim interpretation, clarity, and added matter as the central issues, consistent with typical e-cigarette device patent disputes in this series. The excerpt does not provide detailed claim construction reasoning beyond confirming that Auxiliary Request 1 overcame the invalidity grounds.