UPC CFI 316/2023
Sep 12, 2023·EP3430921 · VAPORIZATION DEVICE SYSTEMS AND METHODS
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Patent revoked)ActionRevocationCategoryMain revocation action
- Parties
- Claimants
- NJOY Netherlands B.V.Operating co.
Representatives- Henrik Holzapfel-McDermott Will & Schulte
- Mathias Karlhuber-Cohausz & Florack
- Laura Woll-McDermott Will & Schulte
- Diana Pisani-McDermott Will & Schulte
- Lisa Nassi-McDermott Will & Schulte
- Camille Pecnard-LAVOIX
Respondents- Juul Labs, Inc.Operating co.
Representatives- Bernhard Thum-Thum & Partner
- Andreas Mötsch-Thum & Partner
- Jonas Weickert-Thum & Partner
- Tobias Wuttke-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Tilman Müller-Bardehle Pagenberg
- David Mulder-Taylor Wessing
- Christian Dekoninck-Taylor Wessing
- Division
- Paris CD
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringElectrical machinery, apparatus, energy
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Other fieldsOther consumer goods
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Jan 17, 2025
- Last decision
- Feb 19, 2025
- EPO Opposition
- Smokeless.world GmbHAdmissible2022-05-03
- Philip Morris Products S.A.Admissible2022-05-03
- Nicoventures Trading LimitedAdmissible2022-05-04
- STRAWMAN LIMITEDWithdrawn2022-05-04
| Patent revoked | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Paris CD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge François Thomas | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Maximilian Haedicke | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Max Tilmann | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Altria Group (45 cases)·Juul Labs Group (33 cases)
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
- 2025-02-19
Summary: The Paris Local Division denied POSCO's application under R. 262.1(b) RoP to access the register of the infringement case (ArcelorMittal v. XPENG), because the action was at an early stage with no validity challenge yet filed and no sufficient justification for access based on parallel EPO opposition proceedings.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Third-party access to register under R. 262.1(b) RoP
- Balancing interests in infringement proceedings versus EPO opposition proceedings
- Requirement for reasoned request for register access
- 2025-01-17Revocation ActionPublic
Summary: The Paris Central Division (Seat, Panel 1) revoked European patent EP 3 430 921 B1 in its entirety, with effect for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. The claimant NJOY Netherlands B.V. succeeded in demonstrating that granted claim 1 lacked clarity/added matter, and the defendant Juul Labs International Inc.'s twelve auxiliary requests were all found unallowable. A thirteenth conditional auxiliary request (2d) was rejected as unreasonably numerous and unclear. Juul Labs was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Revocation action
- Claim interpretation and clarity
- Added matter
- Admission of auxiliary requests
- Reasonableness in number of conditional amendments (R. 50.2 RoP)
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-01-21 | Not public |
| close app | 2025-01-21 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-01-21 | Not public |
| close app | 2025-01-21 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-01-21 | Not public |
| close app | 2025-01-21 | Public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-01-21 | Not public |
| close app | 2025-01-21 | Public |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-01-21 | Not public |
| DecisionOutcome | 2025-01-17 | Not public |
NJOY Netherlands challenged Juul Labs' EP 3 430 921 (vaporization device) before the Paris Central Division, which found the patent fully invalid on grounds of clarity and/or added matter. All twelve formally admitted auxiliary requests failed to cure the defect, and a thirteenth conditional request was rejected as unclear and unreasonably numerous. The patent was revoked entirely with effect for eight Contracting Member States and Juul Labs was ordered to pay NJOY's costs.
EP 3 430 921 lacks clarity / added matter such that claim 1 as granted is unallowable
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 84 EPC (clarity); Art. 123(2) EPC (added matter); Art. 138 EPCNote: The court found claim 1 invalid and all twelve auxiliary requests (I through XII) also unallowable, resulting in full revocation.
Patent valid as granted: claim 1 meets clarity and added matter requirements
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 84 EPC; Art. 123(2) EPCReason: Claim 1 found to lack clarity or contain added matter; none of the twelve auxiliary requests cured the defect.
Thirteen auxiliary requests (including conditional request (2)d. for 'one or more dependent claims as granted in combination with claim 1 of auxiliary request 1')
RespondentLegal basis: R.50.2 RoP; R.30.1(c) RoPReason: Request (2)d. was unclear (undefined which combination to examine first), exceeded the reasonable number of conditional amendments under R.50.2 RoP, and was unsupported by any argument explaining why any combination would support validity.
Defendant's submission of 31 May 2024 (inadmissible late submission)
RespondentLegal basis: R.9.2 RoPReason: Not admitted into proceedings.
Browse other cases on this principle.
The decision keywords — revocation, claim interpretation, clarity, added matter — indicate that clarity and added matter under Art. 123(2) EPC were the operative grounds. The excerpt does not disclose which specific features of EP 3 430 921 were found to lack clarity or constitute added matter.