ARTICLE
16 October 2018

Juul Labs Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems

OM
Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P

Contributor

Oblon is among the largest US law firms that exclusively practice IP law. Businesses worldwide depend on Oblon to establish, protect and leverage their IP assets. Our team of 100+ legal professionals includes some of the country’s most respected practitioners. Most attorneys hold advanced degrees in engineering, physics, chemistry, biotechnology and other scientific disciplines. Oblon is headquartered within steps of the USPTO office in Alexandria, Virginia. 
On October 3, 2018, Juul Labs, Inc. of San Francisco, California ("JLI") filed a complaint (part 1 and part 2) requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On October 3, 2018, Juul Labs, Inc. of San Francisco, California ("JLI") filed a complaint (part 1 and part 2) requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the "Proposed Respondents") unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain electronic nicotine delivery systems and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,070,669 (the '669 patent), 10,076,139 (the '139 patent), 10,045,568 (the '568 patent), and 10,058,130 (the '130 patent) (collectively, the "asserted patents"):

  • J Well France S.A.S. of France
  • Bo Vaping of Garden City, New York
  • MMS Distribution LLC of Rock Hill, New York
  • The Electric Tobacconist, LLC of Boulder, Colorado
  • Eonsmoke, LLC of Clifton, New Jersey
  • ZLab S.A. of Uruguay
  • Ziip Lab Co., Ltd. of China
  • Shenzhen Yibo Technology Co., Ltd. of China
  • XFire, Inc. of Stafford, Texas
  • ALD Group Ltd. of China
  • Flair Vapor LLC of South Plainfield, New Jersey
  • Shenzhen Joecig Technology Co., Ltd. of China
  • Myle Vape Inc. of Jamaica, New York
  • Vapor Hub International, Inc. of Simi Valley, California
  • Limitless Mod Co. of Simi Valley, California
  • Infinite-N Technology Ltd. of China
  • King Distribution LLC of Elmwood Park, New Jersey
  • Keep Vapor Electronic Tech. Co., Ltd. of China

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to electronic nicotine delivery systems and components thereof, such as liquid nicotine pods. In particular, the '669 patent relates to a pod with a mouthpiece, where the mouthpiece covers only an upper portion of the pod body. The '139 patent relates to an apparatus comprising a cartridge having a storage compartment, through which a vaporizable material is visible. The '568 patent relates to a pod with a mouthpiece enclosing and simultaneously concealing a portion of a storage compartment, as well as a device body with a notched pod receptacle to allow a user to view the liquid level inside the pod when the pod sits inside the device body. Lastly, the '130 patent relates to a method of manufacturing a pod with a humectant, a heating element, and a pair of heater contact plates, where the heating element sits between the pair of heater contact plates, and the heater contact plates sit on opposite sides of the pod.

In the complaint, JLI states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to various electronic nicotine delivery systems and components (including pods) associated with the Proposed Respondents as infringing products.

Regarding domestic industry, JLI states that its JUUL system and/or the method of manufacturing such system practice at least one claim of each asserted patent. JLI further states that it employs hundreds of individuals in the U.S. to support JLI's research and development, manufacturing, clinical research, customer support, sales, marketing, and administrative activities relating to its JUUL system.

As to related litigation, JLI states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it also filed various complaints against the Proposed Respondents in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of New York, the District of New Jersey, the Northern District of California, the Southern District of Texas, the Central District of California, and the District of Colorado alleging infringement of the asserted patents or subsets thereof. JLI also refers to related litigations in the United Kingdom and France.

With respect to potential remedy, JLI requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents and related entities.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More