By Timothy S. Donahue
Top Takeaways:
- Altria and its NJOY have asked a Virginia federal judge to block an ITC investigation tied to Juul Labs’ nicotine-salt patents.
- The companies argue the ITC lacks constitutional authority, citing the Appointments Clause and Article III concerns.
- A ruling could shut down the ITC case before a scheduled April 2026 evidentiary hearing.
Altria Group Inc. has asked a federal judge in Virginia to halt a U.S. International Trade Commission investigation (ITC) into its NJOY vaping products, arguing that the ITC lacks constitutional authority to hear Juul Labs’ patent claims on nicotine salts.
In a reply filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Altria and its NJOY division said the court has sufficient grounds to immediately halt the ITC proceeding rather than allow it to continue while constitutional challenges are litigated.
The filing supports a motion for summary judgment and seeks a permanent injunction barring the ITC from proceeding with a Section 337 investigation initiated in response to a complaint by Juul Labs and VMR Products LLC. That ITC probe alleges infringement of Juul Labs-related patents tied to nicotine-salt vaping technology and seeks import bans and cease-and-desist orders against NJOY devices.
According to court documents, the plaintiffs are NJOY LLC, NJOY Holdings Inc., and Altria Group Inc. The defendants are the U.S. International Trade Commission and, in their official capacities, ITC Chair Amy A. Karpel; Commissioners David S. Johanson and Jason E. Kearns; and Administrative Law Judge Doris Johnson Hines.
Altria’s filing contends that the ITC’s structure and procedures violate multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Among the claims are challenges under the Appointments Clause, arguing that statutory appointment authority under Section 337 of the Tariff Act does not properly vest authority in ITC administrative law judges.
The plaintiffs also contend that ITC ALJs are unconstitutionally insulated by dual layers of “for-cause” removal protections.
In addition, the filing raises Article III concerns, relying in part on the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, which limited federal agencies’ ability to adjudicate certain private-rights disputes without jury trials. Altria contends that Juul Labs’ patent claims are private rights traditionally reserved for Article III courts and therefore cannot be adjudicated by the ITC.
Regarding injunctive relief, Altria argued that being compelled to defend against an allegedly unconstitutional administrative proceeding constitutes irreparable harm in itself. The filing also highlights the accelerated pace of ITC litigation, noting that an evidentiary hearing in the underlying investigation is currently scheduled for April 22, 2026.
The plaintiffs urged the court to grant summary judgment and permanently enjoin the ITC investigation, rather than allow the agency’s process to proceed while constitutional questions remain unresolved.
The case adds another layer to the long-running legal battle between Juul Labs and Altria-owned NJOY, which has played out in federal courts, the ITC, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as regulators and judges continue to scrutinize the boundaries of administrative authority in high-stakes patent disputes over vaping products.
