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.
Disclaimer
This article is provided solely for professional research, industry discussion, and informational purposes. Any references to brands, companies, products, technologies, or policies are made for factual reporting and analytical purposes only, and do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, promotion, or advertising by 2Firsts.
Nicotine-containing products, including but not limited to cigarettes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches, carry significant health risks. Readers are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions, including age restrictions and access limitations.
The information contained in this article should not be regarded as investment, legal, medical, regulatory, or commercial advice. While 2Firsts strives to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its content, it does not assume liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from errors, omissions, inaccuracies, or reliance on the information contained herein.
This article is not intended for individuals below the legal age for accessing tobacco or nicotine-related information in their jurisdiction.
Copyright Notice
This article is either original content produced by 2Firsts or content reproduced, translated, summarized, or adapted from third-party sources with attribution where applicable. The intellectual property rights of the original content remain with 2Firsts or the respective original rights holders.
No individual or organization may copy, reproduce, distribute, republish, modify, translate, or otherwise use this content without prior authorization. Any unauthorized use may result in legal action.
For copyright-related inquiries, corrections, or removal requests, please contact: info@2firsts.com.
AI-Assisted Translation and Editing Notice
Portions of this article may have been translated, edited, or reviewed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools to improve efficiency and readability. Due to the limitations of AI-assisted translation and editing, discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies may exist when compared with the original source.
Where applicable, readers are advised to refer to the original source for the most complete and accurate information. If you identify any errors or believe that any content infringes upon your rights, please contact us at info@2firsts.com, and we will review and address the matter promptly.
