DCT

2:22-cv-07638

Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co Ltd v. Greentank Tech Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-07638, C.D. Cal., 10/19/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California based on Defendant’s acts of infringement, solicitation of business, and substantial revenue derived from customers within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s oil-vaping cartridges infringe two utility patents and one design patent related to electronic cigarette atomizer technology.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns technology within electronic cigarettes, specifically the atomizer component responsible for heating and vaporizing a liquid for inhalation.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has been on notice of its potential infringement since at least September 8, 2021, the date it received a cease and desist letter from the Plaintiff.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-10-21 U.S. Patent No. 10,791,762 Priority Date
2017-02-23 U.S. Patent No. D853,635 Priority Date
2017-06-06 U.S. Patent No. 10,791,763 Priority Date
2019-07-09 U.S. Patent No. D853,635 Issue Date
2020-10-06 U.S. Patent No. 10,791,762 Issue Date
2020-10-06 U.S. Patent No. 10,791,763 Issue Date
2021-09-08 Plaintiff sends cease and desist letter to Defendant
2022-10-19 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,791,762 - "Electronic cigarette and method for manufacturing atomizing assembly thereof"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes issues with conventional electronic cigarette atomizers where the heating wire makes poor contact with a liquid-saturated wick, leading to "inadequate liquid supply," "dry burning," and the production of a "burning smell" or even harmful substances like formaldehyde (’762 Patent, col. 1:30-36, col. 5:1-4).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an atomizing assembly where the heating element is "embedded in an interior of the liquid absorption element," which is made of porous ceramic (’762 Patent, Abstract). This configuration ensures the heating element is in "complete contact with the liquid," which is intended to produce more uniform heating, improve atomizing efficiency, and prevent overheating (’762 Patent, col. 2:46-51, col. 5:8-15).
  • Technical Importance: This design seeks to improve the user experience and safety of vaping devices by creating more consistent and efficient vaporization, thereby avoiding the undesirable byproducts of an overheated, dry heating element.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 7 (Compl. ¶10).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A liquid reservoir to store liquid.
    • An atomizing assembly connected to the reservoir, which includes:
    • A "liquid absorption element" made of "porous ceramic" with a "liquid absorption surface" and an "atomizing surface."
    • A "heating element embedded in an interior of the liquid absorption element."
    • An edge of the heating element is "internally tangent to the atomizing surface."
    • A power source assembly to power the heating element.

U.S. Patent No. 10,791,763 - "Atomizer capable of preventing liquid leakage caused by air inside a liquid reservoir and electronic cigarette with the same"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: When assembling a disposable electronic cigarette, inserting a mouthpiece into the liquid-filled cartridge can create an air-tight seal. The insertion movement compresses the trapped air, which can push the e-liquid into the atomizer core and cause leakage (’763 Patent, col. 1:24-35).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a mechanism where the cartridge has an "engaging portion" that defines a "discharging hole." As the mouthpiece is inserted, this hole allows the compressed air to escape. Once the mouthpiece is fully seated, its "inserting portion" blocks the discharging hole, creating the final seal and preventing leakage that would otherwise occur during assembly (’763 Patent, col. 1:53-60, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This innovation addresses a manufacturing and reliability issue, aiming to prevent product failure due to leakage before the product is ever used by a consumer.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A cartridge assembly and a mouthpiece assembly.
    • The cartridge assembly has a liquid reservoir, an opening, and an "engaging portion" adjacent to the opening.
    • The mouthpiece assembly has an "inserting portion" that is inserted into the engaging portion.
    • The engaging portion "defines a discharging hole" for venting air while the inserting portion is being inserted.
    • After the inserting portion is fully inserted, the "discharging hole is blocked."

U.S. Design Patent No. D853,635 - "Atomizer for electronic cigarette"

Technology Synopsis

This patent protects the ornamental, non-functional design of an electronic cigarette atomizer. The claimed design, as shown in the patent's figures, features a generally cylindrical body, a transparent liquid reservoir section, and a distinctively flattened, tapered mouthpiece (’D635 Patent, Figs. 1-8).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts the single design claim (Compl. ¶14).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the overall visual appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as the patented design, such that it would deceive an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶37).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "oil-vaping cartridges" sold by Defendant, providing "GT CR oil cartridges, GT DX oil cartridges, and GT GO oil cartridges" as specific examples (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are described as components that contain a "liquid reservoir" and an "atomizer coil assembly" (Compl. ¶16). These cartridges are assembled with mouthpieces and attached to a power source (battery) to form a complete vaping device (Compl. ¶¶2-5). The complaint includes a diagram illustrating the basic components of such a device, separating the "Atomizer" from the "Battery" (Compl. p. 5, Drawing 1). A second diagram further breaks down the atomizer into a "mouthpiece assembly," a "liquid reservoir," and an "atomizer core assembly" (Compl. p. 6, Drawing 2). The complaint alleges these products are sold within the judicial district but provides no further details on their market position (Compl. ¶7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references Exhibit B, containing claim charts, to support its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶11). The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations.

’762 Patent Infringement Allegations

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's products directly infringe at least claims 1, 2, and 7 of the ’762 Patent (Compl. ¶21). This theory suggests that the accused cartridges contain an "atomizer core assembly" (Compl. p. 6, Drawing 2) that constitutes the claimed "atomizing assembly." The core of this allegation is that the accused assembly uses a porous ceramic material as the liquid absorber and that the heating element is "embedded in an interior" of this ceramic, as required by claim 1.

’763 Patent Infringement Allegations

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's products directly infringe at least claims 1 and 11 of the ’763 Patent (Compl. ¶29). This theory implies that the accused cartridges and their assembly process meet the claim limitations for preventing pressure-induced leakage. The allegation suggests that the accused cartridges possess a feature that functions as a "discharging hole," allowing air to vent during the insertion of the mouthpiece, and that this feature is subsequently "blocked" once the mouthpiece is fully seated.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: A primary factual dispute for the ’762 Patent will concern the internal structure of the accused "atomizer core assembly." The key question is whether the heating element is truly "embedded in an interior" of a porous ceramic material, or if it has a different configuration (e.g., wrapped externally). For the ’763 Patent, a key question is whether the accused products have any physical structure that functions as a "discharging hole" during assembly and is later blocked, as the complaint offers no specific details on this mechanism.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for the ’762 Patent may turn on the construction of "embedded in an interior." The court may need to determine if this requires the heating element to be fully encapsulated by the ceramic or if partial embedding is sufficient. For the ’763 Patent, a question of scope is whether the term "discharging hole" requires a structure intentionally designed for that purpose, or if it could be construed to cover an incidental gap that is sealed upon final assembly.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "embedded in an interior" (’762 Patent, claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is central to the novelty of the ’762 Patent, distinguishing it from prior art where heating elements were typically wrapped around a wick. The infringement determination will likely depend on whether the physical arrangement within the accused products meets the court's definition of this term.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself requires the element be "in an interior," which could be argued to not strictly require complete 360-degree encapsulation. The abstract uses similar language (’762 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that "the heating element is completely embedded inside the liquid absorption element" and that it is in "complete contact with the liquid" (’762 Patent, col. 5:9-13). Figures such as 3A depict the heating element (166) fully surrounded by the porous ceramic (164), which may support a narrower construction requiring full encapsulation.

The Term: "discharging hole" (’763 Patent, claim 1)

Context and Importance

The existence and function of a "discharging hole" is the core inventive concept of the ’763 Patent. Infringement hinges on whether the accused products contain a feature that satisfies the functional and structural requirements of this term.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the hole by its function: "for discharging air inside the liquid reservoir while the inserting portion is being inserted" (’763 Patent, col. 7:27-30). A party might argue that any aperture that accomplishes this function, regardless of its specific shape or origin (e.g., an engineered hole vs. a designed gap), falls within the claim scope.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures depict a distinct, circular "discharging hole" (1210) located on the side of the "engaging portion" (141) of the cartridge assembly (’763 Patent, Fig. 3). A party could argue this suggests the term requires a discrete, intentionally formed structure rather than an incidental gap created by component tolerances.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by its customers and end-users, who directly infringe by using the accused products as intended (Compl. ¶¶22, 30). For the ’D635 design patent, the complaint alleges inducement of infringement by customers who assemble the components into the final infringing configuration (Compl. ¶39).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three patents-in-suit. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving a cease and desist letter from Plaintiff on September 8, 2021, which allegedly provided actual notice of the patents and the infringing activity (Compl. ¶¶20, 28, 36).

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

The resolution of this dispute may turn on the answers to several key questions:

  • A central evidentiary question for the ’762 Patent will be one of internal structure: what is the precise physical relationship between the heating element and the liquid-absorbing material within the accused cartridges? Does discovery reveal a structure that is "embedded in an interior" of a porous ceramic, or will the evidence show a fundamentally different technical configuration?
  • For the ’763 Patent, a key question will be one of functional mechanics: do the accused cartridges possess any physical feature that performs the claimed two-step function of a "discharging hole"—first venting air during mouthpiece insertion and then being blocked upon final assembly? The case may depend on evidence demonstrating that such a mechanism exists and operates as the patent describes.
  • Finally, for the ’D635 design patent, the core issue is one of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, be deceived into purchasing Defendant's atomizer under the belief that it is Plaintiff's patented design?