By Timothy S. Donahue

Top Takeaways:

• No violation found: The U.S. ITC ruled there was no violation in a patent case brought by R.J. Reynolds against multiple disposable vape companies.
• Import ban avoided: The decision prevents a potential exclusion order that could have blocked many vaping devices from entering the U.S. market.
• Industry reaction: The VTA said the ruling protects the independent vaping sector and prevents tobacco companies from monopolizing the category.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has decided that disposable vaporizer devices accused of infringing a patent held by British American Tobacco (BAT) subsidiary R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and its affiliates did not violate federal trade law, ending a high-profile patent dispute that could have reshaped the U.S. vaping market.

In a final decision issued on March 10, the Commission reversed earlier rulings from an administrative law judge and concluded that key claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,925,202 were invalid as obvious. Consequently, the Commission determined that there was no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act and closed the investigation.

The case, which targeted brands like Elf Bar and Geek Bar, filed in July 2024, accused dozens of manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of importing or selling disposable vaping devices that allegedly infringe Reynolds’ patent covering certain vaporizer technology.

Had the Commission upheld the earlier findings, regulators could have issued a general exclusion order blocking the import of infringing disposable vape devices into the United States.

The ITC ultimately rejected those claims, finding the patent violation assertions invalid.

The case involved over 30 named respondents, including U.S. distributors and several manufacturers based in China. Eighteen companies actively participated in the investigation, while others were found in default or were removed through consent agreements during the proceedings. Two respondents, Kimsun Technology and Bidi Vapor, exited the investigation early through consent orders. 

Industry advocates said the ruling prevents broad trade restrictions that could have significantly changed the competitive landscape for vaping products.

“Yesterday’s decision by the International Trade Commission ruling no violation in the case brought by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and its affiliates is a corroboration and validation of what the Vapor Technology Association has passionately advocated for: a free and fair marketplace that limits the power of Big Tobacco monopolies,” said Tony Abboud, executive director of the Vapor Technology Association (VTA).

Abboud said that if the Commission had made a different ruling, the outcome could have been severe for independent companies.

“Without this ruling, an exclusion order banning all nicotine vaping devices from entering the United States would have been implemented,” Abboud said. “Such a ban would have decimated the independent U.S. vaping industry — which accounts for more than $20 billion in economic output and employs approximately 130,000 Americans.”

He added that the ITC’s decision represents “a positive path forward for our industry,” arguing that it prevents the use of trade enforcement to concentrate control of the vaping market among major cigarette manufacturers.

The VTA also noted that the Commission referenced the group’s submission during the investigation, which it said reflects regulators’ consideration of concerns raised by the independent vaping sector.

The dispute highlighted increasing legal conflicts between major tobacco firms and independent vaping producers over intellectual property and market dominance in the quickly changing nicotine product industry.

With the Commission’s ruling now issued, the investigation has been formally closed, eliminating the immediate risk of import restrictions related to the Reynolds patent claims.

Reynolds has already updated its legal approach on March 3. The focus is now on alleged violations of the PACT Act, state flavor bans, and tax laws by Chinese manufacturers and U.S. distributors. That investigation remains open.