DCT

2:22-cv-07646

Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co Ltd v. Next Level Ventures LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-07646, C.D. Cal., 10/19/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants' residence, acts of infringement, and a regular and established place of business within the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s oil-vaping cartridges and associated atomizers infringe two utility patents and three design patents related to electronic cigarette technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue resides in the electronic cigarette (vaping) market, focusing on the design and function of atomizers, which are the components responsible for heating and vaporizing liquid.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendants received a cease and desist letter on September 7, 2021, which may serve as the basis for a claim of willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-10-21 '762 Patent Priority Date
2017-02-23 D544, D534, D635 Patents Priority Date
2017-06-06 '763 Patent Priority Date
2018-05-08 U.S. Design Patent D817,544 Issued
2018-07-17 U.S. Design Patent D823,534 Issued
2019-07-09 U.S. Design Patent D853,635 Issued
2020-10-06 U.S. Patent 10,791,762 Issued
2020-10-06 U.S. Patent 10,791,763 Issued
2021-09-07 Alleged date Defendants received cease and desist letter
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”, issued October 6, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes issues with conventional electronic cigarettes where the liquid-absorbing wick has low efficiency, leading to an inadequate supply of liquid to the heating wire. This can cause "dry burning" and a "burning smell," especially when high power is used ('762 Patent, col. 1:21-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an atomizing assembly where the heating element is "completely embedded" within a "liquid absorption element" made of porous ceramic ('762 Patent, col. 2:46-51, Abstract). This configuration is intended to ensure the heating element remains in full contact with the liquid, enabling more uniform heating, better atomization, and preventing the production of "formaldehyde or other harmful substance" ('762 Patent, col. 5:14-18). The overall structure is depicted in Figure 1 of the patent.
  • Technical Importance: This design aims to improve the consistency, efficiency, and safety of the vaporization process in electronic cigarettes by resolving the problem of poor liquid-to-heater contact.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 7 (Compl. ¶10).
  • Independent Claim 1 breaks down into these essential elements:
    • A liquid reservoir for storing liquid.
    • An atomizing assembly comprising:
      • A liquid absorption element made of porous ceramic, with a surface to absorb liquid and an atomizing surface.
      • A heating element embedded in the interior of the liquid absorption element.
      • An edge of the heating element is "internally tangent to the atomizing surface."
    • A power source assembly.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but states the assertion of claims 1, 2, and 7 is part of a "non-limiting set" (Compl. ¶1, p. 6).

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”, issued October 6, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In the assembly of some e-cigarettes, inserting a mouthpiece can compress the air within the sealed liquid reservoir. This increased pressure can force e-liquid to flow "into the atomization core, thereby causing the leakage of the e-liquid" ('763 Patent, col. 1:21-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a "discharging hole" on an "engaging portion" of the cartridge. As the mouthpiece is inserted, air from the reservoir escapes through this hole, preventing pressure buildup. Once the mouthpiece is fully seated, a part of it blocks the discharging hole, creating a final seal ('763 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:35-42). This mechanism is illustrated in Figure 3, which shows the discharging hole (1210).
  • Technical Importance: This innovation addresses a manufacturing and assembly challenge, aiming to reduce product defects and prevent liquid leakage for the end-user.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Independent Claim 1 breaks down into these essential elements:
    • An atomizer with a cartridge assembly and a mouthpiece assembly.
    • The cartridge has a liquid reservoir, an opening, and an atomization chamber.
    • The cartridge has an "engaging portion" and the mouthpiece has an "inserting portion."
    • The engaging portion defines a "discharging hole" for venting air while the mouthpiece is being inserted.
    • The discharging hole is "blocked" by the inserting portion after insertion is complete.
  • Independent Claim 11 recites an "electronic cigarette" that comprises the atomizer with the features described in claim 1 ('763 Patent, col. 9:9-col. 10:19).

Multi-Patent Capsule: Design Patents

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D817,544, “Atomizer for electronic cigarette,” issued May 8, 2018 (Compl. ¶13).

  • Technology Synopsis: Claims the ornamental design for an electronic cigarette atomizer, protecting its overall visual appearance as shown in the patent's figures.

  • Asserted Claims: The single design claim (Compl. ¶14).

  • Accused Features: The overall aesthetic design of Defendants' accused products is alleged to be substantially the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶41).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D823,534, “Atomizer for electronic cigarette,” issued July 17, 2018 (Compl. ¶15).

  • Technology Synopsis: Claims a different ornamental design for an electronic cigarette atomizer, distinguished by its particular shape and configuration, especially the mouthpiece.

  • Asserted Claims: The single design claim (Compl. ¶16).

  • Accused Features: The visual appearance of Defendants' accused products is alleged to infringe the patented design (Compl. ¶49).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D853,635, “Atomizer for electronic cigarette,” issued July 9, 2019 (Compl. ¶17).

  • Technology Synopsis: Claims a third distinct ornamental design for an electronic cigarette atomizer.

  • Asserted Claims: The single design claim (Compl. ¶18).

  • Accused Features: The aesthetic appearance of Defendants' products is alleged to be an infringement of the patented design (Compl. ¶57).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "oil-vaping cartridges" that can be assembled with mouthpieces to create "atomizers" and combined with a a power source to form "vaping devices" (Compl. ¶20). Specific product lines named include AVD C1, C2, C3, C4, and GoodCarts Eazy-Press cartridges (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products contain a "liquid reservoir" and an "atomizer coil assembly" for vaporizing oil (Compl. ¶20). The complaint includes a high-level exploded diagram of the accused technology. Drawing 2 from the complaint illustrates the accused atomizer's components, including a "mouthpiece assembly," "liquid reservoir," and "atomizer core assembly" (Compl. ¶20, p. 7). The complaint alleges these products are offered for sale in the district (Compl. ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an Exhibit B, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶29). Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below based on the narrative text of the complaint.

  • '762 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendants' products directly infringe claims 1, 2, and 7 by containing an atomizer that satisfies every limitation of these claims (Compl. ¶25). The core of the infringement theory rests on the assertion that the "atomizer core assembly" shown in the complaint's Drawing 2 (Compl. p. 7) corresponds to the claimed "atomizing assembly," and that it is constructed with a porous ceramic element that embeds a heating element as claimed.
  • '763 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges infringement of claims 1 and 11, which relate to preventing leakage during assembly (Compl. ¶33). The infringement theory is that the process of assembling the accused "mouthpiece assembly" onto the "liquid reservoir" (Compl. p. 7, Drawing 2) practices the claimed method of venting air through a temporary "discharging hole" that is subsequently sealed.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions ('762 Patent): A central factual dispute will likely concern the internal construction of the accused "atomizer core assembly." Key questions for the court may include: (1) Is the liquid-absorbing material in the accused products "porous ceramic" as claimed? (2) Is the heating element "embedded in an interior" of that material, or is it merely adjacent to or wrapped by it? (3) Does the evidence show that an "edge of the heating element is internally tangent to the atomizing surface"?
  • Structural and Functional Questions ('763 Patent): The dispute may turn on whether the accused products possess a structure that meets the definition of a "discharging hole." This raises the question of whether the defendants' products include a specific, designated vent for pressure equalization during assembly that is then blocked, or if any air displacement occurs through incidental, unsealed gaps that would not meet the claim limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "heating element embedded in an interior of the liquid absorption element" ('762 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core structural relationship of the '762 invention. The interpretation of "embedded in an interior" will be critical for determining infringement, as it distinguishes the invention from prior art where heating wires may wrap around or touch a wick without being inside it.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly uses the phrase "completely embedded" in the detailed description (e.g., '762 Patent, col. 2:46-47). A party could argue that because the claim itself omits the word "completely," the scope is not limited to being fully encased and could cover partial embedding.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific manufacturing method where the heating element is placed in a mold and ceramic material is injection-molded around it ('762 Patent, col. 2:11-20). A party could argue this context implies "embedded" requires the element to be encased within a solid ceramic body formed around it.

  • Term: "discharging hole" ('763 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The existence and identity of this structure are fundamental to the infringement allegation for the '763 patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether an incidental gap can meet the limitation, or if a specifically designed structure is required.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim functionally defines the hole as being "for discharging air" ('763 Patent, col. 7:27-28). An argument could be made that any structure that performs this function, regardless of its specific form, meets the limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict the "discharging hole" (1210) as a distinct, circular aperture in the wall of the engaging portion ('763 Patent, Fig. 3). A party may argue that this disclosure limits the term to a deliberately formed opening, not a transient or incidental gap between components.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants knowingly and intentionally encourage "customers and end-users" to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶26-27, ¶34-35). For the design patents, inducement is alleged for products sold in unassembled form, where assembly by a third party would complete the infringing design (Compl. ¶43, ¶51, ¶59).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint claims Defendants had knowledge of the patents "at least as of their receipt of Smoore's cease and desist letter dated September 7, 2021," and continued to infringe thereafter (Compl. ¶24, ¶32, ¶40, ¶48, ¶56).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical implementation: For the '762 patent, the case will likely depend on factual evidence from product teardowns. Does the accused atomizer's "core assembly" use a heating element "embedded in an interior" of a "porous ceramic" body, or does it employ a structurally different, non-infringing heating mechanism?
  • A second central issue will be one of structural and functional identity: For the '763 patent, the key question is whether the accused products, when assembled, possess a distinct "discharging hole" that performs the claimed function of venting pressure before being sealed. The court will need to determine if an incidental gap between parts can satisfy this limitation or if a purpose-built vent is required.
  • Finally, for the three design patents, the dispute will be a classic test of visual similarity: Would an ordinary observer, aware of prior electronic cigarette designs, be deceived into thinking the Defendants' atomizers are the same as the designs claimed in the D'544, D'534, and D'635 patents?