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
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.