Juul v NJOY (UPC_CoA_237/2025)
Decision date:
28 April 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- NJOY brought an action for revocation of the patent in issue against Juul Labs before the Paris CD. The Paris CD revoked the patent and Juul Labs appealed and applied for a stay of the appeal proceedings. Juul Labs applied for a stay on the basis of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Board of Appeal that had been accelerated. NJOY agreed to a stay.
- Pursuant to Rule 295(a) RoP and Article 33(10) UPCA, the court may stay proceedings where the patent is also subject to opposition or limitation proceedings before the EPO or a national authority where the decision is expected to be given "rapidly".
- The Court of Appeal applied its previous decision in Carrier v Bitzer, concerning the definition of the term "rapidly". It must be interpreted in light of the relevant circumstances and the stage of the other proceedings.
- In these proceedings the Court of Appeal contacted the EPO Boards of Appeal, who confirmed that the opposition hearing was scheduled for 20 October 2025 and the decision without reasons would be announced at the end of the oral hearing (the decision with reasons was to follow some time afterwards). As such, the Court of Appeal was of the view that the EPO's decision could be expected rapidly, at some point before or just after the possible date for the oral hearing before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed to the stay, noting that there were no pending infringement proceedings or other circumstances that would balance against a stay.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.