NJOY Wins JUUL’s VMR Patent Lawsuit, “Window View” No Creativity

The ruling holds that adding a window to the outer shell of an electronic cigarette to display the cartridge containing e-liquid inside is not a creative step, and technicians can make this modification based on early US patents and general knowledge.

Quick overview of NJOY wins JUUL’s VMR patent lawsuit

1. Adjudication body: UPC Court of Appeal
2. Involved party: VMR Products LLC, a subsidiary of JUUL; NJOY Netherlands BV, a subsidiary of Altria. They are all e-vapor companies.
3. Date of ruling: December 29, 2025
4. Controversial point: The shell window displays the internal smoke cartridge and atomization structure (cartomizer)
5. Conclusion: Not creative; The amendment was not supported
6. Patent involved: EP3456214; The challenger is NJOY Netherlands BV

According to Law360‘s reporting, the appellate court of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) of the European Union has refused to restore a European patent held by VMR Products LLC, a subsidiary of JUUL. And upholding its previous ruling that the patent is not inventive compared to earlier devices.

The appellate court made a ruling on December 29, 2025. Rejected the restoration request made by VMR Products LLC against its competitor NJOY Netherlands BV

The now public ruling holds that adding a window on the outer shell of an electronic cigarette to display the cartridge containing e-liquid inside is not creative. The ruling pointed out that an earlier US electronic cigarette patent had disclosed an atomizer device with all the features of the VMR patent, except for the cartridge window.
The ruling states that technicians can develop a device for electronic cigarettes that allows users to view the cartridge and cartridge components based on the early patent and their general knowledge.

1. The appellate court also stated, “Technicians who hope to provide an atomizer that is easy to check the status of inserted cartridges will consider setting a window as a routine modification; the window is a well-known general means in daily household appliances and equipment, and will be set in an obvious position: the cartridge component. The result of this can be easily predicted”.

2. The appellate court stated that there is no content in the patent text indicating that the user will use this window to achieve the functional purpose of the claimed electrical component inspection. The ruling pointed out that there is no synergistic effect between the position of the shell window and the position of the internal battery contact point of the device.
3. The ruling holds that the problem solved by the device is to allow users to check the status of the nicotine containing e-liquid cartridges inside.
4. The appellate court also wrote: “The use of this method in a specific technical context is objectively appropriate and there is no situation that would make its application appear impossible, problematic, or impractical.” The ruling also mentioned that another earlier patent “provides an electronic cigarette with a liquid level check window for the cartridge.
5. The appellate court also rejected VMR’s attempt to salvage the patent through multiple amendments and ultimately determined that the solution lacked creativity.

In the first instance stage, NJOY convinced the UPC Court of First Instance in 2024 to revoke VMR’s patent for an atomizing device on the grounds of lack of creativity in design. VMR is located in San Francisco and subsequently appealed. VMR advocates that its device not only allows users to check the status of internal smoke bombs, but also to inspect certain electrical components inside the device.

Reference: Vape Co. Fails To Restore Patent On Appeal At UPC – Law360

Reference: Final decision VMR VS NJOYEP214 (signed).pdf