Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co Ltd v. A A Global Imports Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: A&A Global Imports, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Crowell & Moring LLP
• Case Identification: 2:22-cv-08014, C.D. Cal., 11/02/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California based on Defendant's incorporation, residence, and substantial business activities within the district, including alleged acts of patent infringement.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s oil-vaping cartridges, sold under the AVD, GoodCarts, and RAE brand names, infringe four U.S. patents related to the construction and assembly of electronic cigarette atomizers.
• Technical Context: The patents concern core technologies in electronic cigarette atomizers: one branch addresses the design of heating elements embedded in porous ceramic for improved vapor production, while another addresses a mechanical solution to prevent e-liquid leakage during product assembly.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the patents-in-suit since at least September 8, 2021, the date it received a cease and desist letter from the Plaintiff. This allegation of pre-suit notice forms the basis for the willfulness claims.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-10-21	’762 Patent Priority Date
2017-02-23	’D544 and ’D635 Patents Priority Date
2017-06-06	’763 Patent Priority Date
2018-05-08	’D544 Patent Issue Date
2019-07-09	’D635 Patent Issue Date
2020-10-06	’762 Patent Issue Date
2020-10-06	’763 Patent Issue Date
2021-09-08	Cease and Desist Letter Sent
2022-11-02	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 conventional electronic cigarettes as suffering from inadequate liquid supply to the heating element, particularly at high power. This can lead to "dry burning," a bad taste, and potentially harmful byproducts. Existing solutions were described as having low atomizing efficiency or producing popping sounds (’762 Patent, col. 1:21-47).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an atomizing assembly where the heating element is "embedded in an interior" of a "liquid absorption element" made of "porous ceramic" (’762 Patent, Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 3A, this places the heating coil (166) in direct and complete contact with the liquid-saturated ceramic (164), which is intended to provide more uniform heating and efficient atomization (’762 Patent, col. 5:8-14).
• Technical Importance: This design purports to improve atomization performance and consistency by ensuring the heating element is constantly supplied with liquid from the surrounding porous material, thereby avoiding localized overheating and the associated negative effects (’762 Patent, col. 5:8-14).

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.
  • An atomizing assembly comprising a liquid absorption element made of porous ceramic.
  • 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.

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: The patent identifies a manufacturing and assembly problem where inserting a mouthpiece into a liquid-filled, sealed atomizer cartridge compresses the trapped air. This increased pressure can force e-liquid into the atomization core, causing leakage and product failure (’763 Patent, col. 1:21-35).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a mechanical design that provides a temporary air vent during assembly. An "engaging portion" of the cartridge includes a "discharging hole" that allows trapped air to escape as the mouthpiece's "inserting portion" is pushed into place. Once fully seated, the mouthpiece itself blocks the "discharging hole", sealing the unit and preventing leakage (’763 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:47-60). This mechanism is depicted in Figure 3, showing the discharging hole (1210) and inserting portion (22).
• Technical Importance: This invention provides a solution to a common failure mode in disposable e-cigarettes, improving manufacturing reliability and preventing a negative user experience associated with liquid leakage.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶12).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A cartridge assembly with a liquid reservoir and an opening.
  • A mouthpiece assembly with an "inserting portion" inserted into the opening.
  • An "engaging portion" on the cartridge that defines a "discharging hole".
  • The hole functions to discharge air while the mouthpiece is being inserted.
  • The hole is "blocked" by the inserting portion after insertion is complete.

U.S. Design Patent No. D817,544 - "Atomizer for electronic cigarette," Issued May 8, 2018

• Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the specific, non-functional, ornamental design for an electronic cigarette atomizer. The claimed design consists of the overall visual appearance, including the shape and proportions of the cartridge body and mouthpiece.
• Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the patent's figures (Compl. ¶14).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall visual appearance of Defendant's RAE-branded products is substantially the same as the patented design, such that it would deceive an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶39).

U.S. Design Patent No. D853,635 - "Atomizer for electronic cigarette," Issued July 9, 2019

• Technology Synopsis: This patent protects a specific ornamental design for an electronic cigarette atomizer, distinct from the 'D544 patent. It covers the product's visual characteristics, including its configuration and surface ornamentation.
• Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the patent's figures (Compl. ¶16).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's RAE-branded products embody a design that is substantially the same as the claimed design, creating a likelihood of confusion for an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are oil-vaping cartridges, including "AVD Glass Vape Cartridges," "GoodCarts Glass Vape Cartridges," and "RAE (Refined Atomizer Engineering) 510-Threaded Connection Ceramic Core Cartridges" (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 19).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused products as components for vaping devices, comprising a liquid reservoir and an atomizer coil assembly (Compl. ¶18). Drawing 2 provides an exploded view of the components of an accused-type atomizer, including the mouthpiece, liquid reservoir, and atomizer core assembly (Compl. p. 6). The complaint alleges these products are sold within the judicial district and lists numerous specific product numbers (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, an "Exhibit B" containing claim charts that allegedly detail the infringement theories (Compl. ¶18). The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

’762 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the AVD, GoodCarts, and RAE products directly infringe at least claims 1, 2, and 7 of the ’762 Patent (Compl. ¶23). The infringement theory appears to be that the "ceramic core" of the accused cartridges is a "porous ceramic" "liquid absorption element" with a "heating element" "embedded in an interior", matching the core limitations of claim 1. The complaint does not, however, provide specific factual support (e.g., from a product teardown) to show that the internal construction of the accused products meets these claim limitations.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: A central factual dispute will likely be whether the heating element in the accused products is "embedded in an interior" of the ceramic material as claimed, or if it is constructed differently (e.g., wrapped around, coated, or merely in contact with it).
  • Scope Question: The analysis may turn on the construction of "internally tangent to the atomizing surface". The parties may dispute whether the accused products' heating element placement meets this specific geometric and functional requirement.

’763 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts that the AVD and GoodCarts products infringe claims 1 and 11 of the ’763 Patent (Compl. ¶31). The theory of infringement suggests that these products incorporate the patented anti-leakage feature. It alleges that during assembly, the accused products have a mechanism that allows air to vent from the liquid reservoir, and that this vent is then sealed upon final assembly, tracking the functionality of the claimed "discharging hole" (Compl. ¶¶ 31, '763 Patent, cl. 1).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: The key question is whether the accused products physically contain a structure that functions as the claimed "discharging hole"—a feature that both vents air during assembly and is subsequently blocked by the mouthpiece. Evidence will be needed to show this specific mechanical interaction occurs.
  • Scope Question: The dispute may focus on whether any observed air venting mechanism in the accused product is a dedicated "discharging hole" as claimed, or simply an incidental property of the product's general assembly or primary airflow path.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'762 Patent: "embedded in an interior"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the ’762 Patent, distinguishing it from prior art where heating elements are typically exposed or wrapped around a wick. Infringement will depend on whether the accused products' heating element is situated "in an interior" of the ceramic. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the fundamental structural relationship between the heating and wicking components.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not specify the degree of embedment, which could support a construction that includes partial embedment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the heating element as being "completely embedded" (’762 Patent, col. 5:10), and the figures, such as Fig. 3A, depict the heating coil fully encased within the porous ceramic material, which may support a narrower construction requiring full encapsulation.

'763 Patent: "discharging hole"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because it is not merely any hole, but a feature with a specific two-part function: venting air during insertion and being blocked after insertion. The case may turn on whether the accused products have a structure that meets this dual functional requirement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term covers any pathway that allows air to escape during assembly, even if it is not a distinct, purpose-built hole.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 specifies the hole is for "discharging air ... while the inserting portion is being inserted" and is later "blocked" (’763 Patent, col. 7:27-32). This language, along with figures showing a distinct hole (Fig. 3, element 1210), suggests a specific structure separate from the primary vapor path, designed expressly for this purpose.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges induced infringement for all patents, asserting that Defendant knowingly sells the accused cartridges to customers and end-users with the intent that they will be assembled and used in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25, 32-33, 40-41, 48-49). It further alleges the products are not staple articles suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶24).

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is alleged for all patents based on Defendant’s continued infringement after receiving a cease and desist letter on September 8, 2021, which allegedly provided pre-suit knowledge of the patents and the infringing activity (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 30, 38, 46).

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

1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: For the ’762 patent, can Plaintiff produce evidence, likely from technical analysis of the accused products, demonstrating that they contain a heating element that is truly "embedded in an interior" of a porous ceramic body in the specific "internally tangent" configuration required by the claims?
2. A key question will be one of mechanical function: For the ’763 patent, does the assembly of the accused cartridges involve a specific "discharging hole" that vents air during mouthpiece insertion and is subsequently blocked by that same mouthpiece, or does any observed air movement result from a different, unclaimed mechanism?
3. The design patent claims will raise a question of visual scope: Would an ordinary observer, comparing the accused RAE products to the prior art, perceive the overall ornamental designs to be substantially the same as those protected by the ’D544 and ’D635 patents?