By Timothy S. Donahue
Top Takeaways:
IP enforcement: ITC refuses to lift import and sales ban on Stiiizy devices amid patent dispute with Pax.
Legal stakes: Dispute centers on whether pre-patent investments can establish a U.S. “domestic industry.”
Market impact: Ruling maintains pressure on vape hardware companies as patent disputes reshape competition.
The ban stays.
The U.S. International Trade Commission has refused to lift import and sales bans on Stiiizy Inc. devices, keeping in place exclusion and cease-and-desist orders related to a patent dispute with Pax Labs.
The decision means Stiiizy products covered by the ruling remain blocked from import and sale in the U.S. while the company pursues an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Stiiizy asked the ITC to stay the orders, arguing that the case presents a novel legal issue and that enforcement would cause immediate and irreparable harm to its business.
“The Commission’s ruling presents an admittedly difficult legal question,” Stiiizy said in its filing, contending that allowing the ban to take effect now would be “fundamentally unfair” while that issue is under review.
At the heart of the dispute is how the ITC defines “domestic industry,” a crucial element in patent cases before the agency.
In its 2025 decision, the ITC ruled in favor of Pax Labs, confirming that the company met the economic prong of the domestic industry test—even partly through investments made before the relevant patents were officially granted. The Commission stated that this approach is consistent with existing Federal Circuit precedent.
Stiiizy disputes that interpretation, arguing the use of “pre-issuance investments” is essentially a first-impression issue that has not been clearly addressed by the appellate court.
The company also highlighted internal disagreement during the case. According to its filings, both the administrative law judge and the ITC’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations initially decided that such investments should not be counted toward establishing domestic industry, before the Commission reversed course on review.
That reversal is now central to the appeal.
Stiiizy informed the ITC that it qualifies for a stay, asserting that the legal issue remains unsettled and that the balance of harms supports granting relief. The company stated that immediate enforcement would cause “extraordinary and irreparable harm,” although details of those claims were redacted in public filings.
At the same time, Stiiizy argued that Pax Labs would face limited downside from a temporary pause, noting that much of its revenue comes from sources unrelated to the patents in question.
The ITC, however, chose not to stop enforcement and did not give detailed reasons for its decision.
The case now progresses to the Federal Circuit, which had already instructed the ITC to decide on the stay request while it reviews Stiiizy’s concurrent emergency motion.
