INSTRUMENTS, OTHER FIELDS, ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING — European UPC Patent Cases
4 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 4 total
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Court of Appeal allowed Juul Labs International, Inc. to withdraw its appeal against the revocation of EP 3 498 115. This was possible because the opposing party, NJOY Netherlands B.V., consented to the withdrawal. While the proceedings were closed, the court upheld the general principle that the withdrawing appellant is considered unsuccessful and must cover the costs incurred by the successful party (NJOY) for the appeal stage.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural request for access to confidential case files following the revocation of an EP patent. The Court held that once a first instance judgment is rendered, the public interest in transparency and understanding the court's reasoning generally prevails over confidentiality concerns. Although the applicant was granted access to the documents, the judge-rapporteur also allowed Juul Labs to appeal and suspended the order pending the outcome of that appeal.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court granted a stay of revocation proceedings following an appeal by Juul Labs against a prior finding. The request was based on parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal which had been accelerated. Given that the EPO proceedings were expected to conclude rapidly relative to the scheduled UPC hearing, the court ruled in favor of granting the stay, allowing both parties to await the final outcome at the EPO.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope and conditions for public access to written pleadings in UPC proceedings, specifically concerning a party's interest in parallel EPO appeal proceedings. The court granted immediate access to specific documents requested by Nicoventures Trading Limited, recognizing its direct stake in the patent's validity. Crucially, this access was conditioned on Nicoventures agreeing not to file or distribute these materials with other courts, such as the EPO Boards of Appeal, until the UPC case is finalized.
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.