DCT
2:24-cv-07009
VPR Brands LP v. Flumgio Technology Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: VPR Brands LP (Delaware)
- Defendant: Flumgio Technology Inc (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sriplaw PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-07009, C.D. Cal., 08/19/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California based on 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic cigarette products, specifically the Flum Pebble line, infringe a patent related to the internal components and operation of electronic cigarettes.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic cigarettes (or "vapes"), specifically the use of electronic sensors and microprocessors to control the vaporization process initiated by a user's inhalation.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,205,622, was the subject of a disclaimer filed on October 27, 2023, by the assignee, VPR Brands, LP. This disclaimer fully disclaimed claims 12, 16, 17, and 18. This action narrows the enforceable scope of the patent but does not affect Claim 13, which is asserted in this litigation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-03-24 | ’622 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-06-26 | ’622 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-10-27 | Disclaimer of claims 12, 16, 17, and 18 of the ’622 Patent filed |
| 2024-08-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,205,622 - "Electronic Cigarette"
- Issued: June 26, 2012 (’622 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art electronic cigarettes as suffering from several drawbacks, including complex and costly manufacturing, fluid leakage, inconsistent vapor production, and a reliance on "mechanical devices as an airflow detector," which allegedly have a short lifespan and are sensitive to environmental changes (’622 Patent, col. 2:5-11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-part electronic cigarette, consisting of a detachable "electronic inhaler" and an "electronic atomizer" (’622 Patent, col. 2:25-30). The key innovation is the replacement of a mechanical airflow switch with an "electric airflow sensor" that detects a user's puff. This sensor sends a signal to a "Single Chip Micyoco" (a microprocessor), which then instructs the power source to heat the atomizer and create vapor, a process designed to be more reliable and responsive (’622 Patent, col. 4:12-22; Abstract). Figure 1 provides a block diagram illustrating the interaction between the electric sensor (6), the microprocessor (3), the power source (5), and the atomizer (22).
- Technical Importance: The patent purports to represent a "state-of-the-art" advance by using an electric airflow sensor instead of a mechanical one, which is claimed to solve problems of "aging and short-life drawbacks" and make the puffing action "much easier and smoother" (’622 Patent, col. 3:34-40).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint specifically asserts infringement of at least Claim 13 (Compl. ¶28).
- Independent Claim 13:
- An electronic cigarette comprising a tubular electronic inhaler and a tubular electronic atomizer,
- wherein the electronic inhaler includes an electric power source that provides an electric current to the electronic atomizer,
- the electronic cigarette further comprising an electric airflow sensor that is used to turn on and off the electric power source by way of detecting an airflow and sending a signal to a Single Chip Micyoco,
- wherein the Single Chip Micyoco receives the signal from the electric airflow sensor, instructs the electric power source to send an electric current to the electronic atomizer, and a time period and a magnitude of the electric current.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The primary accused product is the "Flum Pebble 6000 Disposable," referred to as the "Flum Pebble Vape" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint also alleges infringement by other "substantially similar" products sold by the Defendant (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Flum Pebble Vape is an electronic cigarette that contains a rechargeable battery (power source), an "electric airflow sensor to detect air movement," and an electronic atomizer with an electric connector, heating wire, and liquid container (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
- The alleged operation is that a user inhales through an "air puffing hole," which creates an "air inflow" that "triggers the atomization process that converts a solution to a gas emulating the smoking process" (Compl. ¶18). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the specific components or control logic of the accused device.
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’622 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An electronic cigarette comprising a tubular electronic inhaler and a tubular electronic atomizer... | The Flum Pebble Vape is described as an electronic cigarette containing an "electronic inhaler" and an "electronic atomizer." | ¶¶16-17 | col. 4:8-12 |
| ...wherein the electronic inhaler includes an electric power source that provides an electric current to the electronic atomizer... | The Flum Pebble Vape contains a "rechargeable battery that functions as a power source that supplies electric power to an electronic inhaler" and an atomizer. | ¶16 | col. 4:7-8 |
| ...the electronic cigarette further comprising an electric airflow sensor that is used to turn on and off the electric power source by way of detecting an airflow... | The inhaler in the Flum Pebble Vape "includes an electric airflow sensor to detect air movement generated by a user's inhaling or puffing act." | ¶16 | col. 4:12-14 |
| ...and sending a signal to a Single Chip Micyoco, wherein the Single Chip Micyoco receives the signal from the electric airflow sensor, instructs the electric power source to send an electric current... | The complaint alleges the user's inhalation "triggers the atomization process," implying a control circuit receives a signal from the sensor and activates the power source. | ¶18 | col. 4:18-22 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the presence of an "electric airflow sensor" and an atomization process that is "trigger[ed]," but it does not provide any specific evidence about the type of sensor used or the nature of the control circuitry in the Flum Pebble Vape. A central question will be whether discovery reveals that the accused device's controller performs the functions of the claimed "Single Chip Micyoco" and whether its sensor is an "electric" one as contemplated by the patent.
- Scope Questions: The term "Single Chip Micyoco" is idiosyncratic to the patent. The defendant may argue that this term is limited to the specific CPU/microprocessor arrangement described in the specification (’622 Patent, col. 4:14-22), and that the accused product's potentially simpler or different control logic does not meet this limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "electric airflow sensor"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central point of novelty asserted by the patent over prior art "mechanical" sensors. Its construction will determine whether a wide or narrow range of modern sensor technologies found in vaping devices can be accused of infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent contrasts it with "mechanical devices" but provides limited examples of what qualifies as "electric."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly describes the sensor's role as "detecting the airflow resulted from the puffing action of a user, and wak[ing] up the single chip micyoco" (’622 Patent, col. 4:12-15). This functional language may support a construction covering any non-mechanical component that performs this role.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 14, while not asserted, specifies that "the electric airflow sensor is a diaphragm microphone." The specification also mentions this specific embodiment (’622 Patent, col. 6:38-39). A defendant may argue that this is the only type of "electric" sensor fully disclosed and enabled, potentially limiting the scope of the term in the independent claim.
The Term: "Single Chip Micyoco"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the control element of the invention. The infringement analysis for this element will depend entirely on its definition, as the complaint provides no details on the accused product's controller.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent equates the term with a general-purpose "CPU processor" on an "integrated circuit board" that executes "embedded computer programs" to control the power source based on the sensor's signal (’622 Patent, col. 4:18-22, 14). This could be argued to cover any modern microcontroller used for this purpose.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "Micyoco" is not a standard technical term. A defendant could argue it is indefinite or, alternatively, limited to the exact "single chip" configuration shown in Figure 1, potentially excluding systems that use multi-component control logic or application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) that do not fit the description of a programmable "CPU processor."
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief requests a finding of willful infringement (Compl., Prayer ¶A). The complaint, however, does not allege specific facts that would typically support such a finding, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or a refusal to cease infringement after being notified.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: how broadly will the court define the terms "electric airflow sensor" and "Single Chip Micyoco"? The patent's distinction from "mechanical" sensors and its use of a unique term for the controller create ambiguity that will likely be central to the dispute.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will the plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the internal components of the Flum Pebble Vape—specifically its airflow sensor and control circuitry—actually operate in the manner required by the precise language of Claim 13? The conclusory allegations in the complaint will need to be substantiated with technical evidence derived from the accused product itself.