Juul, NJOY and Altria Clash Over Use of UCSF Public Documents in U.S. Patent Litigation

Key Points

• Juul Labs and competitors NJOY and Altria are disputing the courtroom use of documents stored in a public University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) database.
• The dispute was detailed in a joint court filing submitted on December 24, 2025, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
• Juul argues that some of the UCSF-hosted documents were inadvertently disclosed and remain protected by attorney–client privilege.
• NJOY and Altria counter that the documents have been publicly accessible online for months or years and therefore are no longer privileged.
• Defendants claim the documents may contain evidence of misconduct related to Juul’s patent filings.
• Juul has requested a protective order to prevent defendants from accessing or using the disputed files.
• After unsuccessful negotiations between the parties’ legal teams, the matter has been submitted to Judge John J. Tuchi for a ruling.

2Firsts，December 29, 2025 —— Juul Labs, Inc. has filed a request with a federal court in Arizona seeking to block its rivals NJOY, LLC and Altria Group from using a set of documents stored in a public database maintained by the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), according to a joint court filing submitted on December 24.

The dispute arises in an ongoing patent lawsuit (Case No. 2:25-CV-02853-JJT), with Juul arguing that certain documents hosted in the UCSF archive are protected by attorney–client privilege and were disclosed inadvertently during a prior document production.

Juul told the court that the documents were uploaded as part of a large-scale disclosure process connected to settlements with multiple U.S. state attorneys general. Due to the volume of materials involved, Juul said some confidential legal communications were unintentionally made public. The company maintains that existing court orders allow it to reclaim such materials without waiving privilege.

NJOY and Altria strongly oppose the request. In their response, the defendants argue that the documents have been publicly accessible on the UCSF website for months or years and therefore no longer qualify as privileged. They further state that the materials may contain evidence relevant to alleged misconduct by Juul during its patent application process.

According to the defendants, the documents have been viewed more than 100,000 times by the public and have served as a resource for researchers and industry observers. They also argue that Juul was aware of the documents’ public availability as early as 2024 but failed to take timely action to restrict access.

Court records show that attorneys for both sides held an extended Zoom conference on December 8, followed by multiple rounds of written correspondence, but were unable to resolve the dispute. The matter has now been submitted to U.S. District Judge John J. Tuchi for determination.

The court is expected to decide whether documents that are publicly accessible through an academic archive can still be shielded from use in litigation under claims of attorney–client privilege.

Image source: Bloomberg Law