Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 JANUARY 2025

4 Key Takeaways For Litigants Filing UPC Revocation Actions

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

On 14 September 2023, NJOY filed a revocation action with the Unified Patent Court's (UPC) Central Division Paris against VMR's European patent EP 3 456 214 B2.

NetherlandsIntellectual Property

NJOY Netherlands B.V. v. VMR Products LLC, Central Division Paris, Decision issued on 27 November 2024, ACT_571565/2023, UPC_CFI_308/2023

Background

On 14 September 2023, NJOY filed a revocation action with the Unified Patent Court's (UPC) Central Division Paris against VMR's European patent EP 3 456 214 B2. The patent relates to the field of vaporizers, also known as electronic cigarettes. NJOY argued the patent was invalid due to lack of inventive step. With its statement of defence to the revocation action VMR also filed a conditional application to amend the patent with 35 auxiliary requests. In its reply to the defence for revocation and in its defence against the application to amend the patent, NJOY submitted new evidentiary documents. The defendant VMR objected to the admission of these documents, arguing they could have been submitted with the statement of revocation already.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from