2024-11-27 - CD Paris - NJOY v. VMR Products - UPC_CFI_308/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_308/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
- Art:
- Proceeding Decision
- Parteien:
- NJOY Netherlands B.V. v. VMR Products LLC
Kernaussage: The Paris Central Division revoked VMR's vaporizer patent EP 3 456 214 in its entirety.
2024-11-27 - CD Paris - NJOY
v.
VMR Products - UPC_CFI_308/2023
notable
The Paris Central Division revoked VMR's vaporizer patent EP 3 456 214 in its entirety. The distinguishing feature — a shell with a window at the cartomizer receiving segment allowing a portion of the chamber to be visible from outside — was held obvious over Pan combined with either common general knowledge or Lee. Providing a non-transparent wall with a window to permit visibility of a chamber was found to belong to the most basic CGK available to the skilled person, and Lee's para. [0005] (describing transparent/semi-transparent mouthpieces as 'typically' used to let the user see the liquid level) was held to be admissible as evidence of CGK: while a singular patent application is in principle not CGK, an author's own statement that a teaching is widely spread can be used to prove the CGK fact. None of the ten selected auxiliary requests saved the patent: most added features already disclosed in Pan (fluid vaporizable substance, wicking element, inhalation tube, translucent cartomizer material, single heating element, shared shell), while Auxiliary Request IX ('free-standing fluid') was refused under Art. 84 EPC because the meaning of 'free-standing' applied to a gas was unclear. All dependent claims 2-14 were separately analysed and held obvious. The partial-revocation alternative under Art. 65(3) UPCA was in principle admissible but was rejected for lack of substantiation and because the requested conditional combinations were not reasonable in number under R. 30(1)(c) / R. 50(2) RoP. The decision also consolidates four headnote-level procedural rulings on the front-loaded system and the evidentiary status of published patent specifications as CGK.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCInventive Step
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claim 1 held obvious over Pan + CGK (window as basic solution for chamber visibility) and over Pan + Lee (explicit guidance on mouthpiece windows for liquid-level checking) [55-83]. All ten selected auxiliary requests and dependent claims 2-14 fell for the same reasons [84-150].”
Clarity
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 84 EPC · derivative
“Auxiliary Request IX rejected under Art. 84 EPC — 'free-standing fluid' is unclear when applied to a gas; defendant offered no meaningful definition [107-110].”