DCT
2:25-cv-09331
JUUL Labs Inc v. Glas Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: JUUL Labs, Inc. (Delaware) and VMR Products LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Glas, Inc. (Delaware) and Glas, LLC (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-09331, C.D. Cal., 09/30/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants' principal place of business being located in Los Angeles, California, within the Central District of California, and on alleged acts of infringement occurring within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic vaporizer products, the Glas Device and Glas Pods, infringe two patents related to the structural design and functionality of electronic nicotine delivery systems.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS), a market category that provides an alternative to traditional combustible cigarettes by heating a liquid to produce an inhalable aerosol.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff JLI has previously filed five patent infringement cases at the International Trade Commission (ITC) against other parties, and that in the four completed investigations, the Commission found a violation and issued remedial orders.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-01-01 | JLI founded (approximate date based on complaint) |
| 2013-11-12 | ’722 and ’981 Patents - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2015-01-01 | JUUL System launched (approximate date based on complaint) |
| 2018-10-01 | JLI acquires VMR Products LLC (approximate date based on complaint) |
| 2021-10-05 | ’722 Patent Issued |
| 2023-03-21 | ’981 Patent Issued |
| 2025-08-28 | Domestic purchase of accused Glas System |
| 2025-09-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,134,722 - “Vaporizer,” issued October 5, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the emergence of electronic cigarettes as an alternative to traditional smoking, noting that reusable versions separate a power supply (battery) from a disposable cartomizer (containing the liquid) to reduce costs for the user (’722 Patent, col. 1:21-34). The design of these components and their interaction presents technical challenges.
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a vaporizer with a specific structural arrangement comprising a battery portion and a cartomizer-receiving portion that share a common outer shell (’722 Patent, col. 4:55-61). The cartomizer is insertable into a chamber and contains a body to hold liquid, a wicking element, and a heating element, which is protected by the outer shell when inserted (’722 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 8:1-10). This integrated design aims to provide a reliable and robust device.
- Technical Importance: The claimed architecture provides a self-contained, reusable vaporizer system where the functional components are integrated into a protective and easy-to-use form factor.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 10, and 15 (’722 Patent, col. 18:36-19:10, 19:50-20:49; Compl. ¶7, ¶62).
- Independent Claim 1 includes these essential elements:
- A battery portion with a housing segment and a cartomizer receiving segment defining a chamber, all sharing a common outer shell.
- Charger electrical contacts at one end of the battery portion.
- An insertable cartomizer with a body for holding a vaporizable liquid.
- A wicking element and a heating element within the cartomizer body.
- The entire heating element is disposed within the chamber when inserted, such that the outer shell protects it.
- Independent Claim 10 includes similar elements but specifically requires "at least one magnet" in the battery portion for coupling with a "metal element" on the cartomizer.
- Independent Claim 15 claims a vaporizer with a battery portion containing charger contacts and one or more battery electrical contacts, and an insertable cartomizer with corresponding electrical contacts to complete a circuit.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶7).
U.S. Patent No. 11,606,981 - “Vaporizer,” issued March 21, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the related ’722 Patent, the technology addresses the general design of reusable electronic cigarettes (’981 Patent, col. 1:21-34). A specific challenge not explicitly stated but implied by the solution is allowing users to easily monitor the amount of vaporizable liquid remaining in a disposable or reusable cartridge.
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a vaporizer system where the cartomizer body includes "at least a portion" made of a "translucent material" that allows a user to view the fluid inside (’981 Patent, col. 10:3-6). The corresponding battery portion may have a "window" in its outer shell that aligns with the translucent portion of the inserted cartomizer, facilitating this viewing (’981 Patent, col. 9:15-20). The patent also describes magnetic securing mechanisms (’981 Patent, col. 7:40-54).
- Technical Importance: This design improves user experience by providing a clear, non-intrusive method for monitoring liquid levels, helping to prevent use when the cartridge is empty, which can result in an unpleasant taste or damage to the heating element.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 9, 13, and 17 (’981 Patent, col. 18:10-20:50; Compl. ¶7).
- Independent Claim 1 includes these essential elements:
- A battery portion having an outer shell and a chamber.
- A cartomizer with a mouthpiece end and an insertion end.
- The cartomizer body has a volume to hold a fluid and "at least a portion" of the body comprises a "translucent material" for viewing the fluid.
- The cartomizer is configured for insertion into the chamber.
- A heating element, wicking element, inhalation tube, and mouthpiece.
- A plurality of cartomizer electrical contacts positioned to contact battery electrical contacts.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶7).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are the Glas Device and Glas Pods, which are used together and referred to collectively as the "Glas System" (Compl. ¶35).
- Functionality and Market Context: The Glas System is an electronic vaporizer product sold in the United States (Compl. ¶34). The Glas Device contains a battery and a chamber to receive a disposable Glas Pod (Compl. ¶39). The Glas Pod is a pre-filled cartridge containing an e-liquid, a heating element, a wick, and a mouthpiece (Compl. ¶38). The complaint alleges the Glas System is "highly similar" and "abundantly similar" to the Plaintiff's JUUL System in its structural design and components (Compl. ¶38, ¶39). The complaint provides a side-by-side photographic comparison of the JUULpods and the accused Glas Pods, highlighting their similar rectangular shape and transparent lower bodies (Compl. p. 17). It also presents a visual comparison of the complete JUUL and Glas systems, showing the accused Glas Device with an inserted pod next to the JUUL device (Compl. p. 18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references, but does not attach, claim chart exhibits. The following summary is based on the narrative allegations and visual evidence presented in the complaint.
’722 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a battery portion comprising a battery housing segment and a cartomizer receiving segment... wherein an outer shell is commonly shared... | The Glas Device allegedly has an outer shell, a battery portion, and a chamber for inserting a pod, which the complaint asserts is "abundantly similar to the JUUL Device." | ¶39 | col. 4:55-61 |
| a cartomizer insertable into the chamber... | The Glas Pod is designed to be inserted into the chamber of the Glas Device. | ¶37, ¶39 | col. 4:65-67 |
| a body including a structure configured to hold a vaporizable liquid; | The Glas Pod allegedly has a body with a volume for holding e-liquid. A photograph shows the liquid held in the lower portion of the pod. | ¶38; p. 17 | col. 8:36-38 |
| a wicking element provided within the body... and a heating element provided within the body... | The Glas Pods are alleged to contain, inter alia, a heating element and a wick. | ¶38 | col. 8:46-51 |
| wherein the entire heating element is disposed between the insertion end of the chamber and the base end of the chamber when the cartomizer is inserted... | The internal components of the Glas Pod, including the heating element, are contained within the Glas Device's chamber when the pod is inserted. | ¶39 | col. 18:65-68 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the Glas Device's "outer shell" is "commonly shared" by its battery and pod-receiving segments in the specific manner required by the claim. The construction of this structural term could be a key point of dispute.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may require evidence demonstrating the precise location and configuration of the heating and wicking elements within the accused Glas Pod to determine if they meet the claim limitations, including the requirement that the "entire heating element" is protected within the chamber.
’981 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a cartomizer body having a volume defined therein, the volume configured to hold a fluid vaporizable substance... | The Glas Pod has a body that contains e-liquid, as described in purchase receipts and shown in photographs. | ¶38; p. 14 | col. 8:36-38 |
| wherein at least a portion of the cartomizer body comprises a translucent material configured to allow viewing of the fluid vaporizable substance... | The complaint alleges the Glas Pods are "non-opaque" and provides a photograph showing the lower portion of the pod as transparent, with the e-liquid visible inside. | ¶38; p. 17 | col. 8:38-43 |
| wherein the cartomizer body is configured for insertion into the chamber... | The complaint alleges and provides instructions showing that Glas Pods are sold separately and placed into the Glas Device by the user. | ¶37 | col. 7:40-45 |
| a plurality of cartomizer electrical contacts on an exterior of the insertion end... | The Glas Pods are alleged to have electrical contacts on the end opposite the mouthpiece for connection with the Glas Device. | ¶38 | col. 7:55-60 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The definition of "translucent material" will be critical. The dispute may focus on whether the specific plastic used in the Glas Pod meets the level of transparency or translucency required by the claim, as construed in light of the patent's specification.
- Technical Questions: A factual question will be what portion of the accused Glas Pod body is translucent and whether that portion is "configured to allow viewing of the fluid" in practice, particularly when inserted into the Glas Device, which is alleged to have a window (Compl. ¶39).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "outer shell is commonly shared by the battery housing segment and the cartomizer receiving segment" (’722 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental architecture of the vaporizer device. The infringement analysis for the ’722 patent may depend on whether the Glas Device's construction, which may be a single monolithic body, meets this two-part "segment" limitation where the shell is "commonly shared."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the segments "may commonly share outer shell 106," suggesting a flexible arrangement where a single, continuous outer body can satisfy the limitation (’722 Patent, col. 4:61-62).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of distinct terms "battery housing segment" and "cartomizer receiving segment" could suggest that these must be identifiably separate, yet integrated, sections of the device rather than a single undifferentiated housing. Figure 1 depicts these as two adjoining sections (102, 104) of the overall device (10).
The Term: "translucent material" (’981 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This is the core feature of the asserted independent claim of the ’981 patent. Infringement hinges on whether the material of the accused Glas Pod falls within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is broad. The specification provides examples of "glass or substantially clear plastic," which would support a construction that includes any material allowing light to pass through sufficiently to view the contents (’981 Patent, col. 8:38-40).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the term, in the context of the patent's purpose, requires a specific degree of clarity that enables easy and accurate assessment of the fluid level, not just any degree of light transmission. The function of being "configured to allow viewing" could be argued to imply a higher standard of clarity.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Defendants provide instructions and user manuals that encourage customers to use the Glas System in an infringing manner (e.g., by inserting the pod into the device) (Compl. ¶65, ¶67, ¶75, ¶77). It also alleges contributory infringement under § 271(c), asserting the products are specially designed for infringing use and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶68, ¶78).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' alleged knowledge of the Asserted Patents. This knowledge is purportedly based on: (1) Plaintiff's patent marking on its products and website; (2) the filing of this complaint and a companion ITC action; and (3) Defendants' alleged access to Plaintiff’s public IP portfolio (Compl. ¶64, ¶69, ¶74, ¶79).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case presents questions of both structural and material scope that will likely be central to the dispute. The key issues for the court to resolve appear to be:
- A primary issue will be one of structural interpretation: does the integrated body of the accused Glas Device constitute an "outer shell" that is "commonly shared" by distinct "segments" as defined in the ’722 Patent, or is there a fundamental architectural difference that places it outside the claim scope?
- A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the "non-opaque" material of the accused Glas Pod meet the "translucent material" limitation of the ’981 Patent? This may turn on the level of clarity required by the claim and whether the function of "allow[ing] viewing of the fluid" is demonstrably met by the accused product.