By Timothy S. Donahue
Top Takeaways:
- Key theory excluded: The U.S. ITC upheld an administrative law judge’s decision preventing Altria from advancing its primary infringement theory against Juul Labs late in the investigation.
- Investigation moves forward: The ruling narrows Altria’s patent claims but does not end the ITC investigation into whether Juul Labs infringes patents covering vaping technology.
- High-stakes IP fight: The dispute is one of several ongoing patent battles shaping competition in the U.S. vaping market as companies increasingly rely on intellectual property alongside product innovation.
Altria lost a key procedural battle in its patent dispute with Juul Labs. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has upheld an administrative law judge’s decision that bars Altria from pursuing what had become its principal infringement theory in its patent case against Juul Labs.
The decision limits Altria’s arguments as the high-profile investigation moves toward a final determination.
According to the commission’s order, the ITC affirmed the judge’s ruling that Altria cannot assert the infringement theory because it was not properly disclosed in the earlier stages of the investigation. The decision leaves Altria free to pursue only the infringement theories that were timely presented during discovery.
The investigation stems from allegations that Juul Labs infringes Altria’s patents covering vaping technology. Although the ruling removes one of Altria’s principal arguments, it does not end the investigation or determine whether Juul Labs infringes the remaining asserted patent claims. Those issues will continue through the ITC process.
The decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance in ITC patent litigation, where parties are generally required to identify their infringement theories early in discovery. Administrative law judges frequently reject attempts to introduce substantially new theories late in a case when doing so could prejudice the opposing party.
For Altria, the ruling narrows—but does not eliminate—its case against Juul Labs. The company must now rely on the remaining infringement contentions before the commission as it seeks relief under Section 337 of the Tariff Act.
The dispute is one of several intellectual property battles among major nicotine companies as competition increasingly extends beyond market share to proprietary vaping technologies.
