ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, OTHER FIELDS, INSTRUMENTS — European UPC Patent Cases
3 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 3 total
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural matter where NJOY Netherlands B.V. sought to withdraw an appeal against Juul Labs International Inc. The underlying action was a revocation suit brought before the CFI, which had previously dismissed it. Given that both parties consented to the withdrawal, the CoA permitted the closure of the proceedings. This case highlights the importance of party consent in procedural matters under the UPC Rules of Procedure.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
In a revocation action concerning EP 3 504 990, the UPC Court of Appeal granted a stay of proceedings at the request of Juul Labs. This decision was based on the accelerated timeline of parallel opposition appeal proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. The ruling highlights the practical mechanism for coordinating litigation between the UPC and national/EPO bodies when decisions are expected rapidly.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict rules governing access to written pleadings and evidence in ongoing proceedings. The court ruled that while blanket requests are inadmissible, immediate access can be granted if a member of the public demonstrates a direct interest in the patent's validity—as Nicoventures did due to its prior opposition efforts. Crucially, this access is conditional, preventing the recipient from filing or distributing the documents with other judicial instances like the EPO Boards of Appeal until the UPC appeal concludes.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.