Patent wars, long associated with the technology and software sectors, refer to legal battles between companies seeking to protect, challenge, or leverage intellectual property rights. The tobacco industry’s rapid transition toward reduced-risk products has triggered a similar wave of patent disputes in recent years, particularly since 2018, with no clear winner emerging so far.
Critics argue that “only lawyers win in patent wars,” suggesting companies would be better off directing capital toward research and development rather than litigation. Yet as competition intensifies across vaping, heated tobacco, and nicotine pouch technologies, intellectual property has become an increasingly important strategic weapon. Here is a chronology of the latest developments:
August 2026: EPO Rejects Philip Morris Vape Power Architecture Patent in Victory for Competitor JT
The European Patent Office (EPO) Technical Board of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Philip Morris International (PMI) seeking to defend a patent covering internal power supply architecture for aerosol-generating devices. The decision in case marks another high-stakes setback in ongoing intellectual property litigation among major tobacco manufacturers across Europe.
Rather than covering a specific consumer brand, European patent application EP17701062.6, titled “Aerosol-generating device having multiple power supplies,” targeted a foundational hardware layout. The invention sought to isolate high-drain heating demands from sensitive system micro-electronics by dividing tasks across distinct power sources. Under this design, a primary power supply was dedicated exclusively to the thermal heating element, a secondary supply was reserved for the micro-controller, airflow sensors, and feedback electronics, and an optional auxiliary source could recharge the main heating battery between vaping cycles. This decoupled architecture offered clear engineering benefits for both liquid e-cigarettes and heated-tobacco devices, protecting logic circuits from voltage drops and thermal stress while stabilizing the overall user experience.
Opponent Japan Tobacco challenged the patent, arguing that dividing electrical loads among dedicated supplies lacked novelty and inventive step over prior art dating back to PMI’s initial February 2016 priority filings. EPO Technical Board 3.5.01 agreed with JT across all claim tiers:
| Claim Strategy | EPO Finding | Result |
| Main Request | Not Novel | Broad multi-supply architecture claims rejected |
| Auxiliary Requests 1–3 | No Inventive Step | Technical refinements ruled obvious to skilled engineers |
| Auxiliary Request 4 | Not Admitted | Appeal Board upheld lower-instance procedural rejection |
| Final Disposition | Appeal Dismissed | Patent fails to maintain protection in requested form |
This ruling reflects a growing trend across 2026 European Patent Office (EPO) appeal dockets, where Philip Morris International (PMI) has faced aggressive challenges from key rivals including British American Tobacco (BAT) and JT International. In March 2026, the EPO revoked a PMI patent for electrically heated smoking systems (T 1745/23) following joint challenges by JT and BAT. The following month brought two additional setbacks: the Board revoked a PMI patent covering dual-frequency LC inductive heating circuits (T 0024/24) challenged by BAT subsidiary Nicoventures, and struck down another PMI patent for internet-activated vapes after finding its online authentication process lacked an inventive step over standard Internet of Things (IoT) technology.
The ruling does not strip PMI of core product protection – the company maintains thousands of active global patents alongside pending 2023 applications covering dual-source power systems. However, the decision expands freedom-to-operate for competitors across European markets by preventing PMI from asserting this specific multi-battery architecture. As first-generation next-generation product (NGP) patents reach the ten-year mark, legacy technical claims face heightened scrutiny from opposition divisions evaluating prior art and industry maturation.
August 2026: European Patent Authorities Revoke Japan Tobacco Vape Patent Following BAT Challenge
European Patent Office (EPO) have revoked a vape technology patent held by a unit of Japan Tobacco Group following a successful legal challenge brought by competitor British American Tobacco (BAT). The dispute centered on user-friendly e-cigarette hardware, specifically cartridge designs that feature a visual display allowing consumers to view device status, such as remaining e-liquid levels. BAT filed an opposition with European patent authority, contending that the underlying design lacked novelty and an inventive step.
European officials ruled in favor of BAT after evidence demonstrated that the concept of incorporating a visible status display within a vape cartridge had already been disclosed in prior patent applications. As a result, Japan Tobacco Group’s patent was invalidated in full. The decision reflects the intense intellectual property competition taking place among major global tobacco companies as they seek to protect and expand their market positions in the (reduced-risk) next-generation nicotine domain.
April 2026: BAT Secures EPO Appeal Win in WiFi-Connected Device Patent Dispute with Philip Morris
British American Tobacco (BAT) has secured a legal victory at the European Patent Office (EPO) Boards of Appeal in a dispute with Philip Morris International (PMI) over a WiFi-connected device technology patent requiring online user registration before device activation. The case relates to a European patent covering an internet-enabled electronic nicotine develiery system with authentication and connectivity features, part of a broader wave of “smart” or digitally linked devices.
The EPO Boards of Appeal ruled in BAT’s favour, rejecting Philip Morris’ challenge and upholding BAT’s position that the contested invention did not meet the necessary requirements for patentability, particularly in relation to prior art and obviousness. The decision effectively strengthens BAT’s position in this segment of connected next-generation technologies.
The dispute forms part of a wider portfolio of European IP battles between BAT and Philip Morris involving connected vape and heated tobacco platforms. More broadly, the ruling underscores the strategic importance of intellectual property in the next-generation nicotine category, where competition is increasingly defined not only by device design and consumables, but also by digital features such as connectivity, user verification, and ecosystem control.
April 2026: EPO Upholds PMI Aerosol-Generating Tobacco Patent in Amended Form
The Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office upheld Philip Morris International (PMI)’s “Electrically Heated Smoking System” patent (European Patent No. 2276360) in amended form, rejecting the request by British American Tobacco (BAT) and Japan Tobacco (JT) for full revocation. The patent relates to aerosol-generating tobacco technology, specifically a device and consumable system designed to heat, rather than burn, a substrate such as tobacco or nicotine material in order to produce an inhalable aerosol. The core technical issue in dispute was the control of the heating process – particularly the heater configuration and airflow design – to ensure consistent aerosol generation while avoiding combustion and reducing the formation of unwanted by-products.
The appeal focused primarily on Claim 1 and related dependent claims, which defined this aerosol-generating system, including structural and functional features of the heating element, the substrate arrangement, and the airflow/aerosol pathway. BAT and JT challenged these claims on multiple grounds under the European Patent Convention (EPC), including lack of inventive step, insufficiency of disclosure, and added subject-matter. A central argument was that the claimed heating configuration and aerosol generation approach were obvious in light of prior art systems.
Procedurally, the patent had initially been revoked by the Opposition Division for added subject-matter. That decision was overturned on appeal and the case remitted. In the subsequent proceedings, the Opposition Division maintained the patent in amended form, leading BAT and JT to appeal again seeking revocation. In its final decision, the Board of Appeal upheld the Opposition Division’s outcome and maintained the patent in amended form. The rationale reflects the Board’s assessment that, although there were substantive concerns – particularly regarding inventive step – a narrowed set of claims defining a more specific heating configuration and aerosol-generation mechanism met EPC requirements.
Overall, the ruling shows that while BAT and JT successfully challenged the breadth of PMI’s original claims, PMI retained protection for a more limited version of its aerosol-generating technology, consistent with typical EPO appeal outcomes.
December 2025: EU Court Rejects JUUL Subsidiary’s Vape Patent in NJOY Challenge
The Unified Patent Court’s Court of Appeal has upheld a decision rejecting a European patent owned by VMR Products LLC, a subsidiary of JUUL Labs, after a challenge brought by NJOY Netherlands BV, a subsidiary of Altria-owned NJOY. On December 29, 2025, the appellate panel confirmed that the patent – which covered a vaping device design featuring a window in the outer shell to show the internal cartridge – lacked an inventive step over existing technology and was therefore invalid. The Court agreed with a lower court’s ruling that placing a window to reveal the cartridge and atomizer was an obvious adaptation of earlier designs already documented in prior patents, and that VMR’s proposed amendments did not add anything inventive. As a result, the patent (EP3456214) was not revived, leaving it unenforceable in Europe. The decision underscores ongoing patent disputes in the vaping category between Altria and JUUL.
December 2025: British American Tobacco’s Patent for Smokable Material Remitted by EU Patent Office
The European Patent Office’s Board of Appeal remitted Nicoventures’ patent on an article for use in an apparatus for heating smokable material back to the first instance for further examination rather than upholding or rejecting it outright. This remittal means that the EPO found procedural or substantive deficiencies in how the patent was previously examined – particularly concerning how certain amendments were treated and how claims were interpreted – and determined the patent merits reconsideration under the proper standards.
Nicoventures Trading Ltd. is a subsidiary of British American Tobacco (BAT) focused on next-generation tobacco and nicotine products and holds European patents relating to smokable material and components used in “heat-not-burn” (HNB) and other reduced-harm products. These technologies are at the center of intense global patent disputes with competitors like Philip Morris International (PMI) and others over intellectual property rights for devices that heat tobacco or other materials without traditional combustion. The most recent case reflects ongoing patent challenges and procedural battles in Europe over the validity and enforceability of intellectual property covering key components of heating systems for smokable product.
December 2025: British American Tobacco Regains Patent Review Opportunity in European Vape IP Dispute
The subsidiary of British American Tobacco (BAT), Nicoventures Trading, has won a fresh opportunity to secure a patent for a vaping device after a procedural error at the European Patent Office (EPO). The EPO’s Board of Appeal ruled that the earlier Opposition Division had failed to review the majority of Nicoventures’ 17 auxiliary requests (only four had been considered), thereby violating Nicoventures’ right to be heard. As a result, opposition from Philip Morris International (PMI) has been dismissed and the case is being sent back for a full re-examination. The ruling does not guarantee the patent’s approval – rather, it ensures that Nicoventures gets a thorough re-review under fair procedural conditions. Despite the global settlement reached between the two companies in February 2024 to end most of their pending patent litigation, the individual proceedings continue non-stop and the outcome of the re-examination could have material implications for control over vape-tech patents across Europe
December 2025: British American Tobacco Prevails Over Philip Morris International in European Patent Dispute on “Enhanced-Control” Electonic Nicotine Delivery Device Technology
A recent European patent decision has dealt a setback to Philip Morris International (PMI) after appellate authorities rejected the Company’s attempt to secure protection for an “enhanced-control” electonic nicotine delivery device design. PMI’s patent application focused on a device incorporating temperature sensors and an automatic “wait mode” designed to disable heating under certain conditions, features the Company argued would improve device-level safety controls and user protection. However, the Appeals Board concluded that these elements were already disclosed in earlier prior art and therefore did not meet the threshold for novelty required under European patent law. As a result, PMI was denied exclusive rights to the technology, limiting its ability to differentiate or commercialize the design on a proprietary basis.
British American Tobacco (BAT), through one of its subsidiaries, played a central role in the challenge, arguing successfully that PMI’s claimed invention overlapped with existing technological disclosures. BAT has been actively defending and asserting intellectual property in the rapidly evolving reduced-risk product segment, and the decision reinforces the Company’s ability to block competitors from obtaining patents that it believes rest on previously published concepts. The case fits into a broader pattern of high-stakes litigation between BAT and PMI as both companies invest heavily in next-generation nicotine technologies and use patent systems to protect commercial advantages. Despite the global settlement reached between the two companies in February 2024 to end most of their pending patent litigation, the individual proceedings continue non-stop.
For PMI, the ruling underscores the intensifying scrutiny being applied to control-oriented innovations in the electonic nicotine delivery systems category. Regulators and courts are requiring clear evidence of technical advancement before granting patent protection, meaning incremental improvements to device safeguards may not be enough to qualify as novel inventions. For BAT, the outcome strengthens its competitive position by preventing PMI from monopolizing features that the Board determined were already part of the public domain. More broadly, the decision highlights the increasing difficulty companies face when seeking to patent reduced-risk technologies in a crowded and rapidly maturing field, where even marginal innovations can become subjects of aggressive legal challenge.
November 2025: Philip Morris Loses Bid to Invalidate British American Tobacco’s European Vape Patent
Philip Morris International (PMI) failed in its attempt to overturn a European patent held by a unit of British American Tobacco (BAT), marking the latest development in the ongoing patent battles between the two tobacco companies. The disputed European patent covers a vaping-device power supply system, including a sensor and sensor-holder assembly that regulates airflow and powers the device. PMI argued that the patent lacked novelty and was obvious in light of prior art, contending that similar design elements had already been disclosed in earlier applications. BAT countered that its design was unique, particularly in how the sensor was integrated to manage both power and airflow. European Patent Office (EPO)’s Boards of Appeal ultimately sided with BAT, concluding that PMI failed to demonstrate that the invention was either anticipated or obvious.
This decision is part of a broader, multi-front patent struggle between BAT and PMI over reduced-risk products. Both companies have filed numerous claims across jurisdictions in recent years, defending or challenging patents central to their next-generation nicotine products. While several earlier cases produced mixed outcomes, the overall landscape shifted in February 2024 when BAT and PMI reached a global settlement to end most of their pending patent litigation. However, the individual proceedings continue despite the announced settlement.
With the European ruling upholding BAT’s patent, the company strengthens its defensive moat around key technological innovations in vaping products, while PMI faces the task of designing around the protected technology or negotiating licensing terms.
August 2025: A UK-based packaging company accuses Altria of stealing its design
Gumipod Group Ltd., a UK-based packaging tech firm, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Altria Group and several subsidiaries, including Helix Innovations, Altria Client Services LLC, and Altria Group Distribution Company. The complaint, filed on August 22, 2025, alleges that during confidential discussions in 2018 – governed by a mutual confidentiality agreement -Gumipod provided Altria with samples and detailed specifications of its innovative plastic pod container with an integrated waste bin. Months later, Altria informed Gumipod the project was “on hold,” yet subsequently launched its “on!” nicotine pouch brand in June 2019 using packaging that Gumipod claims mirrors its proprietary technology. The lawsuit asserts that Altria misappropriated trade secrets and seeks remedies on the grounds of violations under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), Virginia’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (VUTSA), breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and business conspiracy.
Gumipod alleges that it discovered the misappropriation in August 2022 only after receiving internal Altria marketing documents related to the “on!” product from a former Altria employee – documents which allegedly highlighted packaging closely resembling Gumipod’s own design. The company is pursuing a jury trial and demands that Altria cease using the disputed technology, compensate for both actual and punitive damages, cover legal fees and court costs, and issue a permanent injunction against further use of its trade secrets.
March 2025: Unified Patent Court Issues Split Rulings in NJOY Challenge to Juul Patents
The Paris central division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has delivered first-instance rulings on all nine revocation actions brought by Altria Group subsidiary NJOY against European patents owned by Juul Labs and its subsidiary VMR Products. The court handed down split decisions concerning Juul’s vaporizer technology, ruling in favor of Juul in five cases while invalidating four patents:
– Upheld patents: The court affirmed the validity of European Patent Nos. EP3504989, EP 3613453, EP3626092, EP3504991, EP2875740
– Invalidated patents: The court struck down European Patent Nos. EP3504990, EP3430921, EP3498115, EP3456214
NJOY originally filed the revocation actions in September 2023 to challenge the validity of Juul’s European patent portfolio. Both parties have already filed appeals against three of the first-instance decisions. Barring a broader out-of-court settlement, the contested patents will move to the UPC Court of Appeal for final resolution later this year.
February 2024: Philip Morris and BAT Reach Landmark Global Patent Settlement
British American Tobacco (BAT) and Philip Morris International (PMI) have agreed to a landmark global settlement, resolving all ongoing patent infringement litigation between the two companies regarding heated tobacco and vapor products.
The agreement, which is valid for an eight-year term starting February 1, 2024, relies on non-monetary provisions to resolve all active disputes worldwide. Under the terms of the accord, all existing injunctions and exclusion orders will be lifted, and neither company will be permitted to file future patent claims against each other’s current heated tobacco and vapor products. Additionally, the agreement ensures that both manufacturers retain the ability to innovate and roll out next-generation product iterations without the threat of renewed legal action.
The resolution clears the path for PMI to proceed with the U.S. launch of its IQOS device, scheduled for May 2024, following years of legal blocks that prevented imports. Speaking during BAT’s full-year 2023 financial results release, BAT Chief Executive Tadeu Marroco highlighted the settlement’s broader impact, noting that it resolves major ongoing cases including action against Vuse Alto in Virginia, as well as litigation involving glo in Europe and Vuse in Germany. Leadership from both companies noted that the truce provides vital “freedom to innovate” and commercial certainty, allowing both firms to focus on expanding their smoke-free alternative portfolios globally.
November 2023: Patent Wars Intensify as PMI Battles BAT Across Global Courts
Philip Morris International (PMI) secured a major victory when the UK High Court invalidated , and British American Tobacco (BAT)’s BAT’s European patent EP3367830 covering induction heating technology for smokable material due to obviousness over prior art. The court rejected BAT’s proposed claim amendments and dismissed its infringement counterclaims against PMI’s IQOS ILUMA. However, the court declined PMI’s request for an Arrow declaration regarding other pending applications in BAT’s patent family, ruling that PMI’s commercial necessity for such a declaration was unclear.
June 2022: UK High Court Rejects Philip Morris Stay Bid as Reynolds Faces $14 Million Patent Damages
The UK High Court has rejected a request by Philip Morris International (PMI) to stay patent proceedings involving rival British American Tobacco (BAT). The decision maintains momentum in the ongoing international intellectual property disputes between the two companies, following a March 2021 High Court ruling that revoked two of BAT’s e-cigarette patents due to obviousness, finding they lacked an inventive step over a prior PMI patent.
Meanwhile, BAT subsidiary R.J. Reynolds Vapor faces $14 million in damages after courts determined the company infringed on two key PMI patents. The infringed intellectual property covers a compact heater designed to improve e-cigarette vaporization efficiency, as well as a mechanical design that prevents liquid leakage inside vaping devices.
