DCT

2:23-cv-01204

JUUL Labs Inc v. NJOY LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-01204, D. Ariz., 02/18/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Arizona because Defendant NJOY is headquartered in Arizona, and Defendant Altria employs sales managers and has a registered agent in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' NJOY ACE electronic vaporizer devices and ACE Pod cartridges infringe four U.S. patents related to the structural design and operational control of electronic nicotine delivery systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to the design of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), focusing on the physical interface between the device body and disposable cartridges, and the control logic for activating the heating element.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint cites a co-pending investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which on January 29, 2025, issued a final determination finding that the same Defendants violated Section 337 by infringing claims of all four asserted patents. The ITC’s stated remedies include a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders against the Defendants.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 11,606,981 Priority Date
2014-11-12 U.S. Patent No. 11,134,722 Priority Date
2015-01-01 JUUL System launched (stated as "In 2015")
2016-02-11 U.S. Patent No. 10,130,123 Priority Date
2016-09-06 U.S. Patent No. 10,709,173 Priority Date
2018-11-20 U.S. Patent No. 10,130,123 Issued
2020-07-14 U.S. Patent No. 10,709,173 Issued
2021-10-05 U.S. Patent No. 11,134,722 Issued
2023-03-21 U.S. Patent No. 11,606,981 Issued
2023-06-01 Altria Group, Inc. acquires NJOY, LLC
2025-01-29 ITC issues Final Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-1368
2025-02-18 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,130,123, “Vaporizer Devices With Blow Discrimination,” Issued November 20, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a failure mode in many pressure-activated electronic cigarettes where blowing into the device can be falsely detected as a draw (inhalation), causing the heater to activate unintentionally. This can waste battery life and vaporizable material (’123 Patent, col. 1:41-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a control method for a vaporizer that uses a pressure sensor to distinguish between blowing and drawing. The system tracks a baseline pressure reading and is configured to hold that baseline constant when a positive pressure (a blow) is detected. The heater is activated only when the sensor detects a negative pressure (a draw) that exceeds a specific threshold below the baseline, thereby preventing false activation at the end of a blow (’123 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-5; Fig. 28).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides a more reliable user experience by preventing the device from heating when not intended, which was a noted shortcoming of earlier pressure-activated ENDS products (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 14 and 27, among others (Compl. ¶64, 65).
  • Independent Claim 14 recites a vaporizer device body with essential elements including:
    • A cartridge receptacle configured to receive a cartridge.
    • A pressure sensor with one side exposed to a "sealed air flow path" and the other side exposed to a "device air path" open to ambient pressure.
    • A gasket to seal the device air path from the sealed air flow path.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶22, 64).

U.S. Patent No. 10,709,173, “Vaporizer Apparatus,” Issued July 14, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint details that early ENDS products were often unreliable, complex, and inconvenient, frequently mimicking the cylindrical shape of traditional cigarettes, which the inventors sought to depart from (Compl. ¶14, 19-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a specific physical construction for a vaporizer apparatus comprising a body and a cartridge. The invention centers on the formation of an "air inlet passage" that is defined by the interaction of two separate components: a first side is formed by an exterior surface of the cartridge, and a second side is formed by an internal surface of the device body's receptacle when the cartridge is inserted (’173 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:1-9). This design departs from the "round white stick" form factor, as illustrated by an image of the rectangular JUULpod cartridge in the complaint (Compl. ¶23, p. 11).
  • Technical Importance: This structural configuration provides an integrated and simple interface for airflow in a non-cylindrical, cartridge-based vaporizer system, contributing to the product's ease of use and unique design (Compl. ¶19, 22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 20, among others (Compl. ¶72, 73).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a vaporizer apparatus with essential elements including:
    • A cartridge comprising a mouthpiece, a storage compartment, and a heater chamber.
    • A body comprising a receptacle configured to insertably receive the cartridge.
    • An airflow path comprising an air inlet passage.
    • The air inlet passage having a first side formed by an exterior surface of the cartridge and a second side formed by an internal surface of the receptacle.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶22, 72).

U.S. Patent No. 11,134,722, “Vaporizer,” Issued October 5, 2021 (Multi-Patent Capsule)

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’722 patent describes a vaporizer’s battery portion that includes a cartomizer receiving segment and a battery housing segment which share a common outer shell. A key feature is the structural arrangement where the insertion end for the cartomizer is at the opposite end of the battery portion from the charger electrical contacts (Compl. ¶55).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 11-14, 15, and 16-21, including independent claims 1, 10, and 15 (Compl. ¶80).
  • Accused Features: The NJOY ACE Device and ACE Pods are accused of infringing the ’722 patent (Compl. ¶80).

U.S. Patent No. 11,606,981, “Vaporizer,” Issued March 21, 2023 (Multi-Patent Capsule)

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’981 patent describes a vaporizer system where the cartomizer (cartridge) body includes a material that allows a user to view the fluid inside. The cartomizer also has a plurality of electrical contacts on the exterior of its insertion end, which are positioned to contact battery contacts located at the base of the device's chamber when inserted (Compl. ¶60). The complaint includes an image of Plaintiff's own "JUULpod" which it describes as having a light transmissive portion to allow viewing of the e-liquid (Compl. ¶24, p. 11).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14-16, 17, and 18, including independent claims 1, 9, 13, and 17 (Compl. ¶88).
  • Accused Features: The NJOY ACE Device and ACE Pods are accused of infringing the ’981 patent (Compl. ¶88).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are the NJOY ACE Device and NJOY ACE Pods, collectively referred to as the NJOY ACE System (Compl. ¶64-65, 72-73).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The NJOY ACE System is described as a vaporizer device and corresponding cartridges used therewith (Compl. ¶39, 61). It is an electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) product. The complaint alleges that Defendant NJOY was acquired by Defendant Altria Group, Inc. on June 1, 2023, and that NJOY's products are distributed by Altria Group Distribution Company (Compl. ¶28, 31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts attached as exhibits, but these exhibits were not provided with the complaint filing. Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint’s narrative.

  • ’123 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the NJOY ACE System directly infringes the ’123 patent (Compl. ¶64). The narrative infringement theory suggests that the NJOY ACE Device, as a vaporizer body, contains a cartridge receptacle for the ACE Pods and operates using a pressure-based sensor system to activate heating. The core of the allegation is that this system necessarily practices the claimed method of discriminating between a user blowing and drawing. This implies an assertion that the NJOY ACE control logic tracks a baseline pressure reading, holds it constant when a positive pressure (blow) is detected, and only activates the heater upon sensing a sufficient negative pressure (draw), thereby meeting the limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶45, 64; ’123 Patent, Abstract).

  • ’173 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the NJOY ACE System directly infringes the ’173 patent through its physical construction (Compl. ¶72). The infringement theory is based on the specific structural interaction between the ACE Pod (cartridge) and the ACE Device (body). It is alleged that when the Pod is inserted into the Device’s receptacle, an air inlet passage is formed by the interface of two distinct surfaces: an exterior surface of the ACE Pod and an internal surface of the ACE Device’s receptacle. This formed passage allegedly directs air along the claimed airflow path to the heater, thus embodying the patented apparatus structure (Compl. ¶50, 72). The complaint provides an image of Plaintiff's JUUL System to illustrate a distinctive, non-cylindrical form factor that it alleges Defendants' products copy (Compl. ¶22, p. 10).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Technical Questions (’123 Patent): A central question will be evidentiary: What is the specific algorithm used by the NJOY ACE System to control heater activation? Does the complaint provide sufficient factual basis to suggest that the accused device's puff detection logic performs the specific claimed steps of "tracking a baseline," "holding the baseline constant" during a blow, and comparing sensor readings to that held baseline to activate a heater?
    • Scope Questions (’173 Patent): An issue for claim construction and factual analysis will be whether the air path in the NJOY ACE System is formed by the specific two-part interface required by the claims. Does the term "air inlet passage," as defined by "an exterior surface of the cartridge" and "an internal surface of the receptacle," read on the structure of the accused products, or is the air path formed in a structurally distinct manner?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • ’123 Patent

    • The Term: "holding the baseline constant" (from asserted independent claim 19, which depends from claim 14).
    • Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core functional step of the patent's blow-discrimination logic. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the ’123 patent may depend on whether the NJOY ACE System's control algorithm performs an operation that meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from simple puff detection systems that might erroneously reset their baseline during a blow.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept in functional terms, such as the baseline being "fixed during the draw" (’123 Patent, Fig. 26) or "frozen" when a blow is detected (’123 Patent, col. 43:25-30), which could support interpreting the term to cover various algorithms that prevent the baseline from adapting during certain events.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowchart in Figure 28 presents "Hold the baseline constant" as a distinct, explicit step (2820) that occurs when blowing or suction is detected, which could support a narrower construction requiring the specific sequence and conditions shown (’123 Patent, Fig. 28).

  • ’173 Patent

    • The Term: "an air inlet passage having a first side formed by an exterior surface of the cartridge and a second side formed by an internal surface of the receptacle" (from Claim 1).
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the specific structural relationship at the heart of the infringement allegation for the ’173 patent. Whether the NJOY ACE System infringes will likely turn on whether the physical structure of its air path is captured by this definition.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the passage more generally as being formed "when the receptacle insertably receives the cartridge," which might support a construction covering any air channel created by the assembly of the two parts (’173 Patent, Abstract).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures such as 7C and the accompanying text describe a specific embodiment where the passage is formed by a "channel" (40) integral to the cartridge body (32) that aligns with the receptacle wall. This could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct channel-like feature on the cartridge's exterior surface (’173 Patent, col. 10:4-10; Fig. 7C).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing instructions and user manuals with the ACE Device and ACE Pods that explain how to combine and use them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶67, 75, 83, 91). It further alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused products are specially designed to infringe and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶68, 76, 84, 92).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the asserted patents and their infringement since at least the filing of the related ITC action (Compl. ¶69, 77, 85, 93). The complaint alleges that Defendants continued their infringing activities despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶69, 77, 85, 93).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof and technical operation: For the ’123 patent, will discovery reveal that the NJOY ACE system’s software performs the specific "hold the baseline constant" logic required by the claims to reject false activations from blowing, or does it employ a fundamentally different, non-infringing algorithm to manage puff detection?
  • A central question will be one of claim scope and structural equivalence: For the patents covering physical structures, particularly the ’173 patent, can the claims defining an "air inlet passage" formed by the interface of the cartridge's exterior and the receptacle's interior be construed to read on the design of the NJOY ACE System, or will Defendants be able to demonstrate a structural mismatch that places their design outside the scope of the claims?
  • The prior ITC determination finding infringement of claims from all four asserted patents will be a significant factor. A key question is how the district court will weigh the ITC’s findings and reasoning, particularly if the Defendants attempt to relitigate issues of claim construction or infringement that were decided in the ITC forum.