Juul Labs International v NJOY Netherlands (CoA, 30 April 2025)

Date	30 April 2025
Court	CoA
Division	Luxembourg (LU)
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_19228/2025 · ORD_19908/2025
Parties	Juul Labs, Inc.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_328/2025, APL_16780/2025, App_19228/2025), the Court of Appeal stays Juul Labs International’s appeal against the Paris Central Division’s decision of 7 February 2025 which, on NJOY Netherlands’ action, had revoked EP 3 504 990 for eight states. The stay runs until the EPO Boards of Appeal give a final decision in the parallel opposition proceedings. The order shows how the Court assesses whether a “rapid decision” can be expected from the EPO: by a concrete comparison of the two timetables.

Question

Should an appeal against a revocation decision be stayed, at the appellant’s request and with the respondent’s consent, pending the EPO Boards of Appeal’s decision on the opposition?

Decision

Rule 295(a) RoP and Art. 33(10) UPCA allow a stay where a rapid decision is expected from the EPO, a notion assessed in the circumstances of the case, including the stage reached in each proceeding (paragraphs 4 to 6). The appeal is at an early stage: without a stay, the hearing would take place around the first half of November 2025, whereas the Boards of Appeal have accelerated their proceedings and set oral proceedings for 14 November 2025 (paragraphs 7 and 8). As the EPO decision is expected before or shortly after a possible appeal hearing, no infringement action is pending and nothing else weighs against it, and Juul Labs requested the stay with NJOY’s consent, the stay is ordered. The parties must inform the Court of the outcome of the parallel proceedings (paragraphs 9 and 10).

Key points for practice

Practical point: a persuasive stay application shows, with dates, that the EPO decision will come no later than shortly after the foreseeable UPC hearing, the parties’ agreement and the absence of pending infringement proceedings weigh in favour (paragraphs 7 to 9).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 33(10)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 239.2, 295(a) and 298
Case law cited: Carrier v Bitzer, Court of Appeal, 28 May 2024

Related decisions

Juul Labs International v NJOY Netherlands, 9 January 2026, later Court of Appeal order in the same appeal (withdrawal).

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantJuul Labs, Inc.11 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La cour d’appel suspend l’appel de Juul Labs contre l’annulation du brevet EP 3 504 990 jusqu’à la décision définitive des chambres de recours de l’OEB, attendue avant ou peu après l’audience d’appel possible.
Appeal: Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance: Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 504 990 mentioned in: summary of the decision, Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Juul Labs International v NJOY Netherlands (CoA, UPC_CoA_328/2025, 9 January 2026) cited in this record
Carrier v BITZER Electronics (CoA, 28 May 2024) cited in this record

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 504 990`	Patent at issue according to the summary or official headnote Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Juul Labs International v NJOY Netherlands (CoA, UPC_CoA_328/2025, 9 J	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: summary of the decision, Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.