UPC_CFI_308/2023

VAPORIZER

RevocationMain Revocation ActionParis CDRevocationCase Closed

Overview Decisions Reasoning Citations Documents Timeline

Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.

Plain-English summary

NJOY Netherlands brought a revocation action against VMR Products' EP 3 456 214 (a vaporizer/e-cigarette device patent) before the Paris Central Division. The court found the entire patent invalid for lack of inventive step over 'Pan' and related prior art, rejected all auxiliary requests as either unsubstantiated or unreasonable in number, and revoked the patent in its entirety across all Contracting Member States. VMR Products was ordered to bear the litigation costs.

Accepted arguments

What the court agreed with — by party.

EP 3 456 214 lacks inventive step over the prior art
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC; Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
Note: The Central Division Paris found all claims (including those in auxiliary requests) obvious over 'Pan' and other prior art; the patent was revoked in its entirety.
New invalidity grounds and new novelty-destroying documents may not be introduced in subsequent written acts beyond the Statement of Revocation
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 30(1) RoP; front-loaded procedure principles
Note: This procedural headnote limits the defendant's ability to introduce new prior art after the initial pleading phase.

Rejected arguments

What the court did not agree with — and why.

Patent valid: claim 1 and all dependent claims are not obvious
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC
Reason: All claims found obvious; dependent claims 13 and 14 were also anticipated or obvious over 'Pan'.
Partial maintenance: patent should be maintained to the extent of one or more dependent claims in combination with claim 1 of proposed amendments
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65(3) UPCA; R.30(1)(c) RoP; R.50(2) RoP
Reason: Request was not substantiated (no explanation why particular combinations would support validity) and was unreasonable in number under R.30(1)(c) and R.50(2) RoP.

Key legal principles

Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.

Front-loaded procedure: claimant in revocation must specify all invalidity grounds and prior art in the Statement of Revocation; new grounds and novelty-destroying documents may not be introduced in subsequent briefs unless responsive to defendant's defence Proportionality and procedural efficiency: parties should not be burdened with overly detailed allegations of undisputed matters Patent specification or published patent application can indicate common general knowledge when the author states the teaching is widely known Partial maintenance request must be substantiated and reasonable in number; bare unsubstantiated reference to combinations is insufficient (R.30(1)(c), R.50(2) RoP)

Browse other cases on this principle.

Prior art relied on

References cited and the role they played.

Pan (prior art document — vaporizer/e-cigarette with airflow sensor and liquid)Novelty-destroying