![[2Firsts Special Report] EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Issues Key Decision: China YTI Gains Procedural Advantage in Heated Tobacco Patent Dispute with Philip Morris](https://static.2firsts.com/uploads/20250619/8c521cbeb665f9c78b5450cbda2c9c5e.png?x-oss-process=style/origin)
[2Firsts Report]Amid the rapid global expansion of next-generation tobacco products and the growing regulatory focus on heated tobacco innovation, a major turning point has emerged in a European patent dispute involving core heated tobacco technology. On June 18, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued decision G 1/24, stating clearly:
“The description and any drawings shall always be consulted to interpret the claims… and not only if the person skilled in the art finds a claim to be unclear or ambiguous.”
This decision represents a significant procedural benefit for Yunnan Tobacco International Co., Ltd.（YTI） in its appeal against Philip Morris Products S.A. concerning a heated tobacco patent.
YTI is a subsidiary of Yunnan Tobacco Industry Co., Ltd. (Yunnan Tobacco), which oversees the company’s international business operations. Yunnan Tobacco is the largest of the 18 tobacco manufacturing companies under the China National Tobacco Corporation.
While the Enlarged Board did not rule on the validity of the patent itself, the clarification regarding the method of claim interpretation directly affects how the key term “gathered sheet” will be construed in this case.
![[2Firsts Special Report] EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Issues Key Decision: China YTI Gains Procedural Advantage in Heated Tobacco Patent Dispute with Philip Morris](https://static.2firsts.com/uploads/20250619/4b5aaf1a909d7fb4ab1c432ae04914eb.png?x-oss-process=style/origin)
Case Background: Terminology Dispute Targets Core Heated Tobacco Structure
The contested patent, EP3076804, was filed by Philip Morris Products S.A. and relates to the structural design of a heated tobacco article.
In 2022, Yunnan Tobacco International filed an opposition against the patent. Central to the opposition was the interpretation of the term “gathered sheet” in claim 1, which was considered critical to determining whether the claim met the requirement of novelty in light of prior art documents.
Yunnan Tobacco International argued that if the term “gathered sheet” were interpreted in line with the description—namely, as including tobacco sheets that are curled, folded, or otherwise compressed or contracted—then the curled tobacco structure disclosed in prior art document D1 would fall within the scope of the claim. As a result, claim 1 would lack novelty and the patent should be invalidated.
Philip Morris, on the other hand, maintained that the term should be interpreted in accordance with the conventional understanding in the art—where a “gathered sheet” would be understood as one that is both curled and folded. Under this interpretation, claim 1 was said to remain novel and inventive.
In 2023, the EPO Opposition Division rejected the opposition and upheld the patent. Yunnan Tobacco International appealed the decision. Given the legal uncertainty and divergent case law regarding claim interpretation rules, the Technical Board of Appeal referred the legal question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal in June 2024, resulting in case G 1/24.
Legal Ruling: Rejects the “Only in Case of Ambiguity” Approach, Establishes a Uniform Standard
In decision G 1/24, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO clarified that during the assessment of patentability—such as in determining novelty and inventive step—the description and any drawings must always be used to interpret the claims, and not only when claim language is unclear or ambiguous.
The ruling emphasized:
“It is a most unattractive proposition that the EPO deliberately adopt a contrary practice to that of the tribunals that are downstream of its patents.”
This interpretive standard is expected to have broad implications for the European patent system, particularly in cases involving emerging technologies such as heated tobacco, e-vapor products, and nicotine replacement innovations, where claim interpretation plays a critical role in determining patentability.
Public Hearing and Industry Attention: 28 Amicus Curiae Briefs Submitted
According to the official press release from the EPO, a public oral hearing was held on 28 March 2025, highlighting the legal and industry-wide significance of the case.
The Enlarged Board of Appeal received a total of 28 third-party submissions—amicus curiae briefs—from legal professionals, corporate stakeholders, and industry associations, reflecting broad engagement in the debate over claim interpretation standards.
The Enlarged Board also emphasized that while the decision was pending, examination and opposition proceedings at the EPO continued unaffected. Once issued, the ruling would be promptly incorporated into relevant case practice and examination guidelines.
Early Expert Commentary Warned of a Potential Shift in European Claim Interpretation Standards
In April 2024, 2Firsts published a guest opinion column by intellectual property attorney Tang Shunliang titled :Global NGP Patent Battlefront: YTI Challenges PMI Over the “Gathered Sheet” Patent
In the article, Tang noted:
“This dispute over the term ‘gathered sheet’ is not just about whether one patent stands or falls—it may well mark a watershed moment for the evolution of claim interpretation standards in Europe.”
The Enlarged Board’s ruling has validated this prediction by institutionalizing the importance of the description as an interpretive source. Going forward, in technical fields such as heated tobacco, a harmonized approach between the claims and the description is expected to become the prevailing standard.
Case Timeline Overview
● 2014: Philip Morris Products S.A. files patent application EP3076804
● 2019: The patent is granted by the EPO
● 2022: Yunnan Tobacco International files an opposition, arguing that the term definition is overly broad and the claim lacks novelty
● 2023: The opposition is rejected; Yunnan Tobacco International files an appeal (case number T 0439/22)
● 24 June 2024: The Technical Board of Appeal refers the claim interpretation issue to the Enlarged Board of Appeal
● 28 March 2025: The Enlarged Board holds a public oral hearing and receives 28 amicus curiae briefs from external stakeholders
● 18 June 2025: The Enlarged Board issues decision G 1/24, establishing that the description must always be consulted when interpreting the claims
Next Step: Return to Appeal Proceedings; Substantive Validity Still to Be Determined
It is worth noting that while decision G 1/24 does not directly determine the validity of the patent, it provides a unified legal standard for the resumption of substantive appeal proceedings.
The case will now return to the Technical Board of Appeal, which will reassess whether the interpretation of the term “gathered sheet” under the new standard renders claim 1 of the contested patent lacking in novelty.
This means that whether Yunnan Tobacco International ultimately succeeds in revoking the patent granted to Philip Morris will become clear in the coming months.
Legal Expert View: The Ruling Clearly Favors Yunnan Tobacco International
Liu Peiling, an intellectual property attorney at Tian Yuan Law Firm, told 2Firsts that the legal standard set by the Enlarged Board of Appeal—namely, that “the description and any drawings must always be consulted to interpret the claims, and not only if the claim is unclear or ambiguous”—clearly works in favor of Yunnan Tobacco International.
According to Liu, the specification of the contested patent explicitly defines the term “gathered” as referring to tobacco sheets or strands that are curled, folded, or otherwise compressed or contracted transversely to their longitudinal axis.
As a result, the “curled tobacco sheet” disclosed in prior art document D1—as cited by Yunnan Tobacco International—would likely fall within the interpreted scope of “gathered sheet” in claim 1, thereby undermining its novelty and potentially threatening the stability of the patent.
2Firsts will continue to follow the case closely and invite commentary from international patent experts and compliance consultants on the broader implications of this decision for claim interpretation practices in the heated tobacco sector, global patent strategies, and the evolving competitive landscape for Chinese and international companies in the European market.
参考资料：
2Firsts welcomes article submissions, interview opportunities, or commentary. Please contact us at info@2firsts.com or connect with 2Firsts CEO Alan Zhao on LinkedIn.
Cover image generated by ChatGPT.
