Short Summary
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC concerning European patent EP 2 875 740 B1, which relates to electronic vapour products. NJOY challenged the patent's validity on the ground of lack of inventive step, relying on prior art documents including 'Cross', 'Pan', and 'DiFonzo', as well as common general knowledge. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) dismissed the revocation action, finding that the invention was not obvious in view of the cited prior art combinations, and maintained the patent as granted, ordering NJOY to bear the costs.
Detailed Summary
This revocation action was filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. (a subsidiary of the Altria Group) against VMR Products LLC (a subsidiary of Juul Labs) on 15 September 2023 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court. The parties are competitors in the market for electronic vapour products. The patent at issue, EP 2 875 740 B1, was filed on 14 March 2014 claiming US priorities from November 2013 and February 2014, and was published on 24 October 2018. At the time of filing, the patent was in effect in France and Germany. No opposition had been filed before the European Patent Office, and no opt-out from the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC had been declared.
The Claimant challenged the validity of the patent solely on the ground of lack of inventive step. The Defendant contested the alleged grounds for revocation and, in the alternative, submitted 41 auxiliary requests to amend the patent, later reduced to six auxiliary requests (AR I to VI).
Procedurally, the Court addressed the Claimant's late-filed documents (Exhibits MWE 11–MWE 28) submitted with the Reply. The Court discussed the front-loaded nature of UPC proceedings under Rules 13 and 44 RoP, balanced against the principle of proportionality and procedural efficiency. The Court held that while a claimant must specify in detail the grounds of invalidity and prior art relied upon, new grounds or new documents considered novelty-destroying or convincing starting points for inventive step assessment cannot be introduced in subsequent written pleadings, as this would constitute an amendment of the case under Rule 263 RoP.
On the merits, the Court examined the inventive step of claim 1 of the patent. The Court assessed the technical field as relating to electronic cigarettes/vaporizers, where the skilled person would be a team of engineers with experience in electronics and vaporizer technology. The Court analyzed the technical contribution of the patent, particularly the use of magnetic elements (permanent magnets and electromagnet) for connecting the power unit and the vaporizer cartridge, allowing for secure connection while maintaining low power consumption.
The Court evaluated the prior art combinations:
1. 'Cross' combined with 'DiFonzo' and/or CGK: The Court found that 'Cross' did not disclose the use of magnetic elements for connecting components, and the skilled person would not turn to 'DiFonzo' (relating to laptop accessories) for guidance, as the power supply in a vaporizer is very limited and a skilled person would not introduce solutions requiring additional power (such as an electromagnet).
2. 'Pan' combined with CGK: The Court found that 'Pan' disclosed screw thread or DC socket connections, and the skilled person would not consider applying magnetic solutions requiring additional power to a vaporizer.
3. 'Pan' combined with 'DiFonzo': For similar reasons, the Court found the skilled person would not turn to 'DiFonzo' from 'Pan', as 'Pan' addressed complexity and cost issues with screw thread connections, and nothing motivated looking at laptop accessory solutions.
The Court concluded that the alleged lack of inventive step of claim 1 over 'Cross' or 'Pan' combined with 'DiFonzo' and/or CGK was not proved. The validity of independent claim 1 justified the validity of dependent claims 2–6. The Court therefore dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as granted, with no need to discuss the auxiliary requests. The Claimant, as the unsuccessful party, was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings up to the ceiling of EUR 500,001.00 under Article 69 of the UPCA.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat. Understanding the court's reasoning in NJOY Netherlands BV vs VMR Products LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Dyson Technology LimitedvsDREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against four entities of the Dreame Group, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which covers an attachment for a handheld hair care appliance. The Local Division Hamburg granted the injunction against the Hong Kong-based manufacturer, the German distributor, and the Swedish affiliate for the UPCA territory, and against the manufacturer and the German Authorized Representative also with respect to Spain, while dismissing the application for the remaining parts.
Ocado Innovation LimitedvsAutostore Sp. z o.o., Autostore System GmbH, Autostore System AT GmbH, Autostore System AB, Autostore System S.L, Autostore System Srl, Autostore AS, Autostore S.A.S.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Ocado Innovation Limited against an order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division granting a member of the public access to the statement of claim in underlying infringement proceedings against multiple Autostore entities. The Court held that the Court of Appeal could validly sit in a composition of three legally qualified judges under Article 9(1) UPCA when only non-technical issues were in dispute. It further held that requests for public access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP require a balancing of the public interest against the interests protected under Article 45 UPCA, and that access could be granted even where proceedings had ended by settlement.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Wim Maas and David Mulder, at Taylor Wessing N.V., Parnassusvsincrease in financial loss. Once infringement has commenced,, economic damage during the proceedings - without the injured
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. in the Milan Local Division, seeking an injunction based on EP 3 076 673 B1 relating to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology. The application was filed during ongoing main proceedings on the merits that had commenced in June 2024. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, finding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new or supervening circumstances that would justify interim relief when the main proceedings were nearing their final stages.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd.vsMicron Technology, Inc. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
CENTRIPETAL LIMITEDvsPALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
This is an order issued by the Court of Appeal concerning an application for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises under Article 60 UPCA. The order sets out general legal principles regarding the standard of proof required for such applications, the distinction between preservation of evidence proceedings and merits proceedings, and the need to balance the applicant's interest in effective enforcement against the defendant's fundamental rights. The text provided contains only the headnotes of the decision and is cut off before the full reasoning and operative part are disclosed.
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.