By Timothy S. Donahue
Top Takeaways:
- Reynolds appeals: The company has filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenging the ITC’s March 10 decision that found no violation of trade law in its disposable vape patent case.
- Patent ruled obvious: The ITC ruled that key claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,925,202 were invalid as “obvious,” overturning an earlier administrative law judge’s finding of infringement.
- Major industry case continues: The dispute, which involved many disposable vape manufacturers and distributors, could still impact intellectual property battles shaping the U.S. vaping market.
The fight over disposable vape patents isn’t over yet. R.J. Reynolds and its affiliates have formally appealed a recent U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling that rejected their claims against dozens of manufacturers and distributors of disposable vaping products.
In a petition filed March 13 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Reynolds asked the court to review the ITC’s final determination that there was no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act in the case involving certain disposable vaping devices.
The appeal challenges the Commission’s decision issued March 10 in Investigation No. 337-TA-1410, which reversed earlier findings from an administrative law judge and concluded that the patent claims at issue were invalid.
The dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 11,925,202, which describes an “electrically powered aerosol-generating smoking device that uses a heater and liquid reservoir to create inhalable vapor.” Reynolds had accused a wide range of companies — including U.S. distributors and manufacturers primarily based in China — of importing or selling disposable vape devices that allegedly infringed the patent.
Initially, the administrative law judge overseeing the case determined that some claims of the patent had been infringed and recommended remedies, which could have included a general exclusion order to block imports of infringing products. After reviewing the ruling, however, the ITC reversed that conclusion.
The Commission found that the relevant patent claims were invalid because they were obvious based on prior art, particularly a combination of earlier references describing similar vapor-generating devices and control systems. Because the claims were deemed invalid, the ITC concluded that no violation of U.S. trade law occurred and terminated the investigation.
Reynolds’ petition requests the Federal Circuit to review the decision and the related orders in the case. The filing was made by RAI Strategic Holdings, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and RAI Services Company, collectively known as Reynolds in the litigation.
The investigation, launched in July 2024, named 35 respondents. Eighteen companies actively participated in the case, while others were found in default or exited through consent orders. The appeal now moves the dispute to the Federal Circuit, where judges will decide whether the Commission’s ruling should stand or be reconsidered.
