DCT
0:25-cv-60173
VPR Brands LP v. Carma Holdco Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: VPR Brands, LP (Delaware)
- Defendant: Carma Holdco Inc (Delaware) and J Brands LLC (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sriplaw, PLLC.
- Case Identification: 0:25-cv-60173, S.D. Fla., 09/26/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have committed acts of infringement and have a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Tyson 2.0" line of disposable electronic cigarette products infringes a patent related to the electronic control and structure of vaping devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes or vapes), specifically the use of electronic sensors and microcontrollers to automatically activate the vaporization process in response to a user's inhalation.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint. The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,205,622, is subject to a disclaimer filed October 27, 2023, for claims 12, 16, 17, and 18. The asserted Claim 13 is not among the disclaimed claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-03-24 | ’622 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-06-26 | ’622 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-09-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,205,622 - Electronic Cigarette
Issued June 26, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art electronic cigarettes as suffering from several drawbacks, including structural complexity, high manufacturing cost, fluid leakage, and discontinuous vaporizing (’622 Patent, col. 2:5-9). A specific problem identified is the use of "mechanical devices as an airflow detector," which are noted to have a short life and sensitivity to temperature and humidity changes (’622 Patent, col. 2:9-12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an electronic cigarette, typically comprising a detachable inhaler and atomizer, that uses an electric airflow sensor to detect a user's puff (’622 Patent, col. 2:49-54). When airflow is detected, the sensor sends a signal to a "Single Chip Micyoco" (a term for a microcontroller), which in turn instructs the power source to supply current to a heating wire for a "predefined time length," thereby vaporizing a liquid solution for inhalation (’622 Patent, col. 2:54-64). This electronic control system is presented as an improvement over prior mechanical systems (’622 Patent, col. 3:21-33).
- Technical Importance: The patent's focus on replacing mechanical airflow switches with more durable and responsive electronic sensors and microprocessor control reflects a technological shift in the design of consumer electronic devices toward greater reliability and automation.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 13 (Compl. ¶¶19, 36).
- The essential elements of Claim 13 are:
- An electronic cigarette comprising a tubular electronic inhaler and a tubular electronic atomizer.
- The inhaler includes an electric power source that provides an electric current to the atomizer.
- The cigarette further comprises an electric airflow sensor used to turn the power source on and off by detecting airflow and sending a signal to a "Single Chip Micyoco."
- The "Single Chip Micyoco" receives the signal from the sensor and "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."
- The complaint states infringement of "one or more claims of the ’622 Patent, including but not limited to Claim 13" (Compl. ¶28).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are various models of disposable electronic cigarettes sold under the "Tyson 2.0" brand, including the Round 2, Heavyweight, Iron Mike, and Lightweight models (collectively, "Tyson 2.0 devices") (Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Tyson 2.0 devices are electronic cigarettes that contain a rechargeable battery (power source), an "electric airflow sensor," and a "single-ship [sic] microcontroller" that controls the vaporization process (Compl. ¶20). According to the complaint, a user's inhalation is detected by the airflow sensor, which sends a signal to the microcontroller (Compl. ¶¶23, 25). The microcontroller then sends a signal to a heating element, activating an electrical current of a specific power and duration to atomize a liquid solution (Compl. ¶26). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Tyson 2.0 devices infringe at least Claim 13 of the ’622 Patent (Compl. ¶¶19, 36). The complaint references claim charts in an Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the pleading; the following summary is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint body.
’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... | Defendants' Tyson 2.0 devices are described as electronic cigarettes containing an electronic inhaler and an electronic tubular atomizer. | ¶¶18, 20, 21 | col. 2:26-30 |
| ...the electronic inhaler includes an electric power source that provides an electric current to the electronic atomizer... | The accused devices contain a rechargeable battery that functions as a power source to supply electric power to the inhaler and atomizer. | ¶20 | col. 2:30-34 |
| ...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 accused devices' inhaler includes an electric airflow sensor to detect air movement generated by a user's inhaling or puffing act. | ¶20, ¶23 | col. 2:49-54 |
| ...and sending a signal to a Single Chip Micyoco... | When the sensor in the accused devices detects airflow, it sends a signal to a microcontroller. | ¶25 | col. 2:53-54 |
| ...wherein the Single Chip Micyoco receives the signal from the electric airflow sensor, instructs the electric power source to send an electric current...and a time period and a magnitude of the electric current. | The accused devices contain a "single-chip microcontroller (or "micyoco" in the patent)" that receives the signal and, in turn, sends a signal to the heating element, activating current at a specific power (magnitude) and for a specific duration. The complaint alleges the microcontroller "controls the duration...and its magnitude." | ¶¶24, 26, 27 | col. 2:54-59; col. 8:8-10 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the proper construction of the term "Single Chip Micyoco." The complaint equates this term with a "single-chip microcontroller" (Compl. ¶24). The question for the court will be whether this unique, seemingly coined term should be interpreted broadly to cover any standard microcontroller or if it has a more specific meaning based on the patent's disclosure.
- Technical Questions: Claim 13 requires the "Single Chip Micyoco" to instruct the power source regarding the "time period and a magnitude" of the current. The complaint alleges the accused microcontroller controls these parameters (Compl. ¶27). A potential point of contention is whether the accused devices' method of "control" is functionally and structurally equivalent to the claimed "instruction" of both time and magnitude, as described in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
1. The Term: "Single Chip Micyoco"
- Context and Importance: This non-standard term appears in the asserted independent claim and is central to the control mechanism of the invention. Its definition will determine whether the "single-chip microcontroller" allegedly found in the accused products (Compl. ¶24) falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a neologism created by the patentee, making its scope dependent entirely on the intrinsic evidence.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "Single Chip Micyoco" in functional terms as a component that "controls the atomization process," receives a signal from the sensor, and is "driven by a software program" (’622 Patent, Abstract). This functional description could support an interpretation that covers any single-chip microcontroller performing these recited functions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The consistent use of the unique capitalized term "Single Chip Micyoco" throughout the patent could suggest that the inventor was referring to a specific type of processor or a processor with a specific architecture, rather than any generic microcontroller.
2. The Term: "instructs the electric power source to send...a time period and a magnitude of the electric current"
- Context and Importance: This phrase defines the specific action the "Single Chip Micyoco" must perform. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused microcontrollers perform this precise two-part "instruction" or a more general form of power regulation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the Micyoco may "turn on the electric power source to supply an electricity current with a predefined time length" (’622 Patent, col. 2:57-59). This could support a reading where any form of timed power delivery meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim's specific conjunction of both "time period" and "magnitude" may be interpreted to require a specific control signal or command structure that dictates both parameters, rather than merely enabling a pre-set power flow for a certain duration. The specification also notes that the current magnitude can depend on the strength of the user's puff, which in turn "controls the temperature and heat generated" (’622 Patent, col. 4:26-31), suggesting a dynamic control mechanism that may inform the meaning of "instructs."
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief requests a finding of willful infringement (Compl. p. 7, ¶A). However, the body of the complaint does not allege specific facts typically used to support such a claim, such as Defendants' pre-suit knowledge of the ’622 Patent or a deliberate disregard of the Plaintiff's patent rights.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute will likely center on claim construction and the technical operation of the accused devices' control systems.
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the non-standard term "Single Chip Micyoco," as used and described in the ’622 Patent, be construed to cover the conventional "single-chip microcontroller" that is allegedly used in the Tyson 2.0 products?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: Does the accused microcontroller perform the precise two-part function of "instructing" the power source on both the "time period and a magnitude" of the current, as required by Claim 13, or does its method of "controlling" the heating element (Compl. ¶¶26-27) differ in a legally significant way from the claimed invention?