Juul Labs International v NJOY Netherlands (CoA, UPC_CoA_328/2025, 9 January 2026)
| Date | 9 January 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Withdrawal (RoP265) |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_328/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CoA_328/2025 · APL_16780/2025 |
| Parties | Juul Labs International, Inc. v. NJOY Netherlands B.V. |
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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 9 January 2026 (UPC_CoA_328/2025), the Court of Appeal permitted Juul Labs to withdraw its appeal against the decision of the Paris Central Division of 7 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_314/2023), which had revoked EP 3 504 990 for eight states at the request of NJOY Netherlands, and declared the proceedings closed. The EPO Board of Appeal had dismissed on 14 November 2025 the appeal against the revocation of the patent by the Opposition Division on 26 April 2024. Juul Labs bears NJOY’s appeal costs and obtains a refund of 60% of the appeal fees. The order states two useful rules: an appellant who withdraws is in principle the unsuccessful party, and the reduction of the refund to 50% applies only to filings made after 31 December 2025.
Question
Who bears the appeal costs where the proprietor withdraws its appeal after its EPO appeal has been dismissed, and which fee refund rate applies?
Decision
As NJOY consented, it had no legitimate interest in a decision, and the withdrawal was permitted (Rule 265.1 RoP). An appellant who withdraws is treated as the unsuccessful party. The exception recognised for a proprietor who surrenders its patent at the outset and requests revocation before the EPO does not apply to one who defended it at first instance, and the court declined to extend it. The 60% refund under Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP applies, since the amendment in force from 1 January 2026 covers only filings made after 31 December 2025.
Key points for practice
- A proprietor who defends its patent at first instance and then withdraws its appeal bears the appeal costs, even if it considers that the EPO outcome made the revocation action unnecessary.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 69(1)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 151(d), 265.1, 360 and 370.9(b)(i)
- European Patent Convention
- Art. 105a
- Case law cited
- 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, Court of Appeal, 5 July 2024, Avago v Tesla, Court of Appeal, 15 January 2025, Stäubli Tec-Systems, Court of Appeal, 26 March 2025
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
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
UPC_CoA_328/2025official number
UPC_CFI_314/2023Parties
- claimantJuul Labs International, Inc.4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantNJOY Netherlands B.V.20 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Withdrawal (RoP265)
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La cour d'appel autorise le désistement de l'appel de Juul Labs contre l'annulation du brevet EP 3 504 990, met les frais d'appel à sa charge et ordonne le remboursement de 60 % des taxes d'appel.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_314/2023).
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 3 504 990mentioned in: summary of the decision, Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- STÄUBLI TEC-SYSTEMS v Respondents (CoA, 26 March 2025) cited in this record
- 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CoA, 5 July 2024) cited in this record
- Nissan Deutschland v Avago Technologies International Sales (CFI, 13 May 2026) cites this decision
- Nokia Technologies v VIMN Germany (CFI, 27 March 2026) cites this decision
- Nokia Technologies v Warner Bros. Discovery (CFI, 27 March 2026) cites this decision
- Juul Labs International v NJOY Netherlands (CoA, 30 April 2025) cites this decision
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, 30 April 2025) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: summary of the decision, Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.