DCT

2:24-cv-00788

PAX Labs Inc v. Stiiizy IP LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00788, C.D. Cal., 01/29/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendants conduct business, including marketing and sales, in the district, and maintain their headquarters and a regular and established place of business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vaporizer cartridges and associated vaporizer devices infringe four patents related to leak-resistant vaporizer technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses leakage and condensation problems in electronic vaporizers, particularly those designed for high-viscosity, oil-based materials such as cannabis extracts.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants gained knowledge of the patents-in-suit at least as of January 29, 2024, upon receipt of a parallel complaint filed at the International Trade Commission (ITC), which forms the basis for Plaintiff's willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-09-22 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2022-06-28 U.S. Patent No. 11,369,756 Issues
2022-06-28 U.S. Patent No. 11,369,757 Issues
2023-09-19 U.S. Patent No. 11,759,580 Issues
2023-09-26 U.S. Patent No. 11,766,527 Issues
2024-01-29 Defendants Notified of Patents via parallel ITC Complaint
2024-01-29 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,369,756 - LEAK - RESISTANT VAPORIZER DEVICE

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes that conventional vaporizers, particularly those used for viscous oils like cannabis extracts, are prone to leakage and condensation buildup. This can create a "sticky residue" that impairs device operation, clogs components, and disturbs electrical contacts, leading to user dissatisfaction. (’756 Patent, col. 1:56-68).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem through a specially designed vaporizer cartridge. The solution incorporates features such as absorbent pads placed within the mouthpiece and an overflow leak chamber to capture errant liquid without obstructing the air path. An exploded view of a cartridge in Figure 3B illustrates key components, including an "ABSORBENT PAD" and an "ELASTOMERIC TANK CAP," which are part of the leak-management system. (’756 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3B).
  • Technical Importance: This design approach seeks to improve the reliability and user experience of oil-based vaporizers by actively managing internal fluid leakage, a significant technical challenge in the field. (’756 Patent, col. 2:1-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 5, and 11. (Compl. ¶10). Claim 1 is directed to a vaporizer cartridge and its essential elements are:
    • A cartridge body with proximal and distal ends.
    • A mouthpiece coupled to the proximal end.
    • A reservoir to hold vaporizable material.
    • First and second reservoir seals.
    • A first pad and a second pad positioned within the interior of the mouthpiece.
    • A bottom cover with first and second air openings.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, and 12-17. (Compl. ¶10).

U.S. Patent No. 11,369,757 - LEAK - RESISTANT VAPORIZER DEVICE

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’757 Patent shares a common specification with the ’756 Patent and addresses the same technical problem of leakage and condensation in vaporizers for viscous oils. (’757 Patent, col. 1:53-68).
  • The Patented Solution: The patented solution is structurally similar to that of the ’756 Patent, involving a cartridge design with absorbent pads and distinct internal chambers to manage fluid. The claims of the ’757 Patent, however, focus on a different combination of structural elements, including an "initial member" positioned between the heater's "housing piece" and the "bottom cover." (’757 Patent, Abstract; col. 34:50-58).
  • Technical Importance: As with the ’756 Patent, this invention aims to enhance the reliability of oil-based vaporizers by providing a robust, leak-resistant mechanical design. (’757 Patent, col. 2:1-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 9, and 15. (Compl. ¶12). Claim 1 is directed to a vaporizer cartridge and its essential elements are:
    • A cartridge body with proximal and distal ends.
    • A mouthpiece coupled to the proximal end.
    • A reservoir.
    • First and second pads positioned within the mouthpiece interior.
    • A heater chamber comprising a heater.
    • A bottom cover with first and second air openings.
    • An "initial member" positioned between the heater's housing piece and the bottom cover, which together define an air chamber.
  • The complaint asserts all dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20. (Compl. ¶12).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,766,527

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,766,527, titled “LEAK - RESISTANT VAPORIZER DEVICE,” issued on September 26, 2023. (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, which shares a common specification with the other patents-in-suit, also discloses a leak-resistant vaporizer cartridge for viscous oils. Its claims are directed toward combinations of elements including reservoir seals, pads within the mouthpiece, and a specific bottom cover construction. (’527 Patent, Abstract; col. 33:46-68).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts all 30 claims of the patent, including independent claims 1, 5, 11, 18, 23, and 26. (Compl. ¶14).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall construction and combination of components in Defendants' vaporizer products, such as the mouthpiece, reservoir, and heater chamber, infringe the ’527 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 22-24, 45).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,759,580

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,759,580, titled “LEAK - RESISTANT VAPORIZER DEVICE,” issued on September 19, 2023. (Compl. ¶15).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also shares a common specification and addresses leak-resistance in vaporizers for viscous oils. The claims focus on structural arrangements including a "distal member" located between the heater housing and the bottom cover, which contains an extension feature for the heater's extension wire. (’580 Patent, Abstract; col. 34:44-67).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts all 20 claims of the patent, including independent claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 16, and 18. (Compl. ¶16).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the internal structural members of Defendants' vaporizer products, including the arrangement of the heater chamber and bottom cover, infringe the ’580 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 22-24, 53).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products include at least the STIIIZY 1 Gram Vaporizer Cartridge, STIIIZY 0.5 Gram Vaporizer Cartridge, STIIIZY (Original) Vaporizer, STIIIZY BIIIG Vaporizer, and STIIIZY LIIIL Vaporizer, along with their components. (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products as a two-part system: a disposable "vaporizer cartridge" (or "pod") and a reusable "vaporizer body" (or "battery"). (Compl. ¶23). Figure 1 of the complaint provides an illustration of the assembled vaporizer, showing the distinct cartridge and body components. (Compl. Fig. 1, p. 6). The cartridge is alleged to contain a mouthpiece, a reservoir for vaporizable oil, and a heater chamber with an atomizer. (Compl. ¶23). Figure 2 of the complaint shows a detailed view of these alleged cartridge components. (Compl. Fig. 2, p. 7). The vaporizer body allegedly includes a power source and a "cartridge receiver" for mating with the cartridge. (Compl. ¶23). The complaint alleges these products are sold within the judicial district. (Compl. ¶25).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an external Exhibit B, which was not filed with the complaint itself; therefore, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose. (Compl. ¶29, ¶37).

Infringement Theory Summary (’756 and ’757 Patents)

The complaint alleges that Defendants' accused vaporizer products directly infringe the asserted claims of the ’756 and ’757 patents. (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 37). The infringement theory appears to be based on a structural mapping of the components of the accused STIIIZY cartridges and vaporizers onto the elements of the asserted claims. For example, the complaint’s description of the accused products as having a mouthpiece, reservoir, and heater chamber suggests Plaintiff intends to argue these physical parts satisfy the corresponding claim limitations. (Compl. ¶23). The inclusion of Figure 2, which illustrates the mouthpiece, reservoir, and heater chamber of a vaporizer cartridge, supports the allegation that the accused products contain the core structural elements recited in the claims. (Compl. Fig. 2, p. 7).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Structural Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the specific internal structures of the accused STIIIZY products meet the detailed requirements of the claims. A potential question for the court is whether the accused products contain structures that function as the claimed "first pad" and "second pad" and are located "within an interior of the mouthpiece" as required by claim 1 of both the ’756 and ’757 patents.
  • Scope Questions: The construction of claim terms will be central. A potential dispute may arise over whether a feature integrally molded into the mouthpiece of an accused device can be considered a "pad" under the claim language, or if the patent’s specification limits that term to a separate, inserted absorbent component.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term

  • "a first pad positioned within an interior of the mouthpiece" (from Claim 1 of the ’756 Patent and Claim 1 of the ’757 Patent)

Context and Importance

  • This term is critical because infringement of the lead asserted claims depends on finding a corresponding "pad" structure within the mouthpiece of the accused products. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the accused devices, which may use various methods for condensation management, contain a feature that falls within the scope of this limitation.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "absorbent members, (e.g., sponges, pads, felts, etc.)" that "may be included in the mouthpiece between the tank and the mouthpiece, to prevent leakage." This language suggests "pad" could be interpreted broadly to encompass a variety of absorbent materials or structures. (’756 Patent, col. 4:56-60).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures, such as the exploded view in Figure 3B, depict the "ABSORBENT PAD" (322a, 322b) as a discrete, separate component inserted into the mouthpiece assembly. This could support an argument that the term "pad" is limited to a distinct piece of material, not a feature that is integral to the mouthpiece body itself. (’756 Patent, Fig. 3B).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶¶ 30-31, 38-39). Induced infringement is alleged based on Defendants' product guides and instructional materials, which allegedly instruct users to combine the vaporizer pod and battery, thereby performing the claimed invention. (Compl. ¶30, ¶38). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the vaporizer batteries are especially made for use with the infringing cartridges, constitute a material part of the invention, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶31, ¶39).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the patents-in-suit as of their receipt of a parallel ITC Complaint filed on January 29, 2024. (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 36, 44, 52).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of structural correspondence: Do the specific internal components of the accused STIIIZY vaporizer cartridges contain structures that meet the definitions and relative positioning of the "pads," "heater chamber," "bottom cover," and "initial member" as recited in the asserted independent claims, or is there a material structural difference?
  • The case will likely involve a key question of claim scope: Can the term "pad," as used in the context of an absorbent member shown in patent figures as a discrete component, be construed broadly enough to read on a feature that may be integrally molded into the mouthpiece of the accused device?
  • A central evidentiary question for indirect infringement will be whether the accused STIIIZY vaporizer bodies have a substantial non-infringing use, or if their sole practical function is for use with the allegedly infringing cartridges, making them a component of a single infringing system.