London Court Upholds PMI's Heating Tobacco Patent

On April 18th, the High Court in London rejected a request from British American Tobacco (BAT) and its subsidiary, Nicoventures, to have two patents related to heated tobacco technology belonging to their competitor Philip Morris International (PMI) revoked. This ruling is the latest in a ongoing dispute over patents between the two companies.

The judge has ruled that PMI's technology patent is valid.

On April 18th, the High Court in London ruled that the patent for the PMI heated non-burning technology system is valid. This technology heats tobacco to a level where it vaporizes and releases smoke, but does not involve combustion.

Michael Tappin KC, who serves as a justice of appeal, has stated that the differences between the initial global patent application and the final European patent application are not substantial enough to warrant the invalidation of PMI's patent, as they do not disclose any "new information.

Judge Tapie also ruled that BAT's 1998 patent application, known as the "Pienemann" patent application, did not describe the same invention as detailed in PMI's two patent claims.

The patent dispute in this case focuses mainly on two aspects. The first is the "unsprayed forming matrix" of the unheated upstream part in the heating system of the non-combustible heating product, and the second is the "additional material" related to the length of the heating element.

According to the ruling, the "Pienemann" patent of BAT did not include the thin film heater in the PMI patent, but rather BAT's own "graphite-loaded sheath". Therefore, according to the ruling, PMI's two patents were found to be valid.

The patent war between both parties is still ongoing.

Although the patent of PMI was deemed valid, the court ruled that BAT's "Glo" heated tobacco product did not infringe on the patent, thus avoiding any counterclaims of infringement filed by PMI.

This ruling is the latest development in an ongoing patent dispute between two tobacco giants who both hope to dominate the "heat-not-burn" tobacco market.

It is reported that PMI originally sued BAT and its subsidiary, Nicoventures, which specializes in selling non-combustible products, claiming that they infringed on PMI's patents for similar technology. This prompted BAT and Nicoventures to file a countersuit seeking to invalidate these patents.

A spokesperson for BAT welcomed the non-infringement ruling by the patent court on the Glo product. However, they did not comment on the null invalidity ruling regarding "Pienemann". PMI representatives declined to respond to the matter.

The case is numbered HP-2022-000002 and is being heard in the High Court of England and Wales.

Further reading:

A United States federal court has granted a retrial of the PMI patent lawsuit case and has revoked the compensation for PMI's legal fees.

A federal court in the United States has rejected PMI's request for a permanent ban on VUSE. However, Reynolds is required to pay patent fees to PMI.

BAT's heated but non-burning products make up over 50% of the European market and are expected to see a 33.8% increase by 2022.

References:

Philip Morris has successfully defeated a tobacco patent challenge from British American Tobacco (BAT). The case centered around a packaging technology called "flow wrap," used in BAT's Pall Mall brand. Philip Morris argued that the technology had already been patented previously by the company, and the UK High Court agreed. BAT has indicated it intends to appeal the ruling.