Short Summary
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against Juul Labs International Inc. regarding EP 3 504 991 before the Paris Central Division, which dismissed the action and ordered NJOY to bear the costs. NJOY appealed the cost decision, but subsequently applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R.265 RoP, with Juul Labs' consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the appeal court fees to NJOY.
Detailed Summary
NJOY Netherlands B.V. (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) brought a revocation action against Juul Labs International Inc. (San Francisco, USA) before the Paris Central Division of the Unified Patent Court, seeking revocation of European patent EP 3 504 991. The Paris Central Division dismissed the revocation action and ordered NJOY to bear the costs of the proceedings (decision of 5 November 2024, ORD_60043/2024, in case UPC_CFI_315/2023).
NJOY appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, requesting that the cost order be set aside and substituted with an order for NJOY to bear 80% of the costs and Juul Labs to bear 20%. NJOY subsequently amended this request, asking instead for an order that NJOY bear only 20% of the costs, with Juul Labs losing its right to claim the remaining 80%.
Before the appeal was decided, NJOY applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R.265 RoP. NJOY requested that the Court of Appeal declare the appeal proceedings closed, cancel the scheduled oral hearing of 16 June 2025, and order (if the Court deemed necessary) that each party bear its own costs in the appeal proceedings. NJOY additionally applied for reimbursement of court fees pursuant to R.370 RoP. Juul Labs consented to the withdrawal, the cancellation of the oral hearing, and the proposal that each party bear its own costs.
The Court of Appeal, applying R.265.1 RoP (which applies mutatis mutandis to withdrawal of appeals), found that since both parties consented to the withdrawal, neither could be considered to have a legitimate interest in having the action decided by the Court. The application to withdraw was therefore permitted.
Regarding costs, the Court noted that R.265.2(c) RoP requires a cost decision in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5. Since both parties agreed that each should bear its own costs in the appeal proceedings, the Court issued an order to that effect.
Regarding reimbursement of court fees, the Court applied R.370.9(b)(ii) RoP, which governs withdrawal before the closure of the interim procedure. Although the Statement of Response had already been lodged when the withdrawal application was made, the withdrawal occurred before the closure of the interim procedure. Accordingly, the Court ordered reimbursement of 40% of the appeal court fees to NJOY.
The final order of the Court of Appeal (issued 23 May 2025) permitted the withdrawal of the appeal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered entry of the decision on the Register, ordered each party to bear its own costs for the appeal proceedings, cancelled the oral hearing of 16 June 2025, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the appeal court fees to NJOY.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in NJOY Netherlands B.V. vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medcial Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.vsOcclutech GmbH
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in case UPC_CFI_630/2025 concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686 B1. The applicant Occlutech GmbH sought interim measures against Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd., who challenged both infringement and validity of the patent-in-suit. The court ordered the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel to ensure proper assessment of the patent's validity at the interim measures stage.
Huawei Technologies Co. LtdvsNetgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited regarding European Patent No. 3 611 989. The decision sets out guiding principles on several procedural and substantive issues, including the formal requirements for withdrawing from the opt-out under Rule 5.7 of the Rules of Procedure, the treatment of exhaustion defenses in infringement proceedings, and the FRAND-related defenses arising from the CJEU's Huawei v. ZTE ruling and IEEE Letters of Assurance. The court clarified that a patent holder who has made multiple acceptable licensing offers (such as a bilateral portfolio license and a pool license) cannot have its infringement action dismissed if at least one offer meets FRAND requirements.
WARMCOOK, NUC Electronics Europe GmbHvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns a Rule 9 RoP application by the defendants in a patent infringement action regarding European Patent EP 2 028 981. The defendants sought permission to submit video recordings (Exhibits D 7b and D 7c) referenced in their statement of defence on USB sticks, as the files exceeded the maximum upload size for the CMS. The judge-rapporteur granted permission to submit the physical exhibits but directed the defendants to follow the prescribed procedure for registering physical exhibits to the CMS via a separate application workflow.
Apple Inc., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd.vsOna Patents SL
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 12 February 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1. The order addresses an application under Rule 262A RoP to protect confidential information, classifying certain information contained in the unredacted Rejoinder to the Reply to the Statement of defense and related exhibits as confidential, and restricting access to designated representatives of the Claimant.
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court on 5 February 2025 in an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation concerning European patent n° 3669828. The order summons the parties to an oral hearing scheduled for 11 February 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Munich, and provides standard procedural information regarding review, public access, audio recording, and consequences of absence.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.