UPClytics
English
Sign inSign up
Overview · Filed: Sep 12, 2023

UPC_CFI_312/2023

VAPORIZATION DEVICE SYSTEMS AND METHODS

RevocationMain Revocation ActionParis CDRevocationCase Closed
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
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.