Juul Labs v NJOY Netherlands (CoA, ORD_598225/2023, 3 April 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 3 April 2024, issued in five joined appeals (UPC_CoA_433/2023, UPC_CoA_435/2023, UPC_CoA_436/2023, UPC_CoA_437/2023 and UPC_CoA_438/2023), the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of Juul Labs International, Inc. against the orders of the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division of 3 November 2023. Those orders had rejected its preliminary objection and allowed NJOY Netherlands to rectify the name of the defendant, wrongly designated as « Juul Labs, Inc. » in five revocation actions. The order, which carries two headnotes, sets the test for rectifying a party’s name and confirms that the Court of Appeal makes no costs order where its decision does not conclude the action.

Question

May a claimant in a revocation action be allowed to rectify the wrongly stated name of the defendant, and must the Court of Appeal rule on costs in an order that does not conclude the proceedings?

Decision

Rectification may be granted unless the defendant is unreasonably prejudiced, which as a rule is not the case where it was clear to the defendant and to the Court that the action was aimed at it (paragraph 13). That was so here: near identical names and registered offices, the defendant described as the sole registered proprietor of the patents, and the representative for service registered for those patents (paragraphs 14.1 to 14.3). The existence of a separate company called Juul Labs, Inc. made no difference (paragraph 15), and the appellant’s representative had accepted service on its behalf (paragraph 18). The request to declare the actions inadmissible was rejected (paragraph 19). On costs, Rule 242.1 RoP is to be read as meaning that a Court of Appeal decision which does not conclude the action contains no costs order. The outcome of the appeal will be weighed in the final decision under Article 69 UPCA (paragraphs 22 to 25).

Key points for practice

• A mistake in the defendant’s name can be corrected where the intended defendant is clear from the statement, in particular through the reference to the registered proprietor and its representative (paragraphs 13 and 14).
• Costs of an appeal on a procedural issue are left to the final decision on the merits (paragraphs 22 to 25).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 32(1)(d), 33(4) and 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.5, 8.6, 13.1, 19.1, 21.1, 42, 44, 48, 118.5, 150, 152.2, 220.2, 242.1, 271.3 and 305.1

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 18 December 2023, UPC_CoA_472/2023, Court of Appeal, 21 March 2024, UPC_CoA_486/2023

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.