VPR Brands LP v. Pop Vapor Co LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VPR Brands, LP (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Pop Vapor Co., LLC (Georgia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sriplaw PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-04012, N.D. Ga., 09/06/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Georgia because the Defendant, Pop Vapor Co., LLC, maintains its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic cigarette products infringe a patent related to the construction and operation of electronic cigarettes, specifically concerning the use of an electric airflow sensor and control circuitry.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to electronic vaping devices that atomize a liquid solution for inhalation as an alternative to traditional combustible cigarettes.
• Key Procedural History: A disclaimer for claims 12, 16, 17, and 18 of the asserted patent was filed by the assignee, VPR Brands, LP, on October 27, 2023. The disclaimed claims include several independent claims, which may focus the dispute on the remaining claims, such as asserted claim 13.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: 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 complex and costly manufacturing, fluid leakage, inconsistent vaporization, and the use of short-lived mechanical airflow detectors that were sensitive to environmental changes (’622 Patent, col. 2:5-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an electronic cigarette with a two-part, detachable design: a reusable "electronic inhaler" and a disposable "integrated electronic atomizer" (’622 Patent, col. 2:27-30). The inhaler contains the power source and, critically, an electric airflow sensor instead of a mechanical one, which is intended to improve reliability and lifespan (’622 Patent, col. 3:25-36). This sensor detects a user's puff and sends a signal to a "Single Chip Micyoco" (microcontroller), which then controls the power supplied to the heating element in the atomizer to vaporize the liquid (’622 Patent, col. 2:50-64).
• Technical Importance: The design's use of a disposable, integrated atomizer aimed to reduce leakage and sanitation issues, while the adoption of an electric airflow sensor was intended to provide a more reliable and responsive user experience compared to the failure-prone mechanical switches used in earlier devices (’622 Patent, col. 3:6-12, 3:36-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 13 (’622 Patent, col. 8:32-47; Compl. ¶29).
• The essential elements of independent claim 13 are:
  • a tubular electronic inhaler and a tubular electronic atomizer;
  • the electronic inhaler includes an electric power source that provides an electric current to the electronic atomizer;
  • 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.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are electronic diffuser products sold under the "POP VAPOR" brand, including the "POP" line and other allegedly similar products such as "POP HIT BAR 4000," "POP HIT FLEX 3000," and "POP HIT SOLO 5500" (Compl. ¶14, ¶15, ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products are electronic diffusers containing a rechargeable battery, an electronic inhaler, and an electronic atomizer (Compl. ¶16-17). The products allegedly include an "electric airflow sensor" that detects a user's inhalation, which in turn "triggers the atomization process that converts a solution to a gas emulating the smoking process" (Compl. ¶16, ¶18). The complaint provides a photograph showing the packaging for a variety of POP brand electronic diffuser products (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’622 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the accused products contain a "Single Chip Micyoco" as required by the claim. The complaint does not allege the presence of this specific component, instead stating more generally that an "electric airflow sensor" triggers the process. The defense may argue that the accused products’ control circuitry does not meet this limitation.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused products' control systems perform the specific functions claimed for the "Single Chip Micyoco," namely receiving a signal from the sensor and then instructing the power source regarding the "time period and a magnitude of the electric current"? The complaint's allegations are conclusory regarding the mechanism that connects the sensor's detection to the atomizer's activation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "Single Chip Micyoco"

  • Context and Importance: This non-standard, capitalized term appears to be a central limitation of the asserted claim. Its construction will be critical. If construed as a generic microcontroller, the claim scope would be broader. If construed as a specific component or a term with a specialized meaning defined by the patent, the scope would be narrower, potentially making infringement more difficult to prove.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification also refers to an "integrated circuit board with a CPU processor," which may suggest that "Single Chip Micyoco" is intended to refer to a general-purpose microcontroller that executes software instructions to control the device (’622 Patent, col. 5:12-14).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The consistent use of the specific, capitalized term "Single Chip Micyoco" in the abstract, summary, and claims could be argued to limit the claim to a particular type of microcontroller or one programmed in a specific way as disclosed, rather than any generic processor (’622 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:52; Claim 13).

• The Term: "electric airflow sensor"

  • Context and Importance: The patent explicitly positions the "electric airflow sensor" as an improvement over prior art "mechanical" devices (’622 Patent, col. 3:25-27). The nature of the accused sensor will be a key factual question.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly contrasts the invention with "mechanical devices," suggesting any sensor operating on electrical, rather than purely mechanical, principles would fall within the term’s scope (’622 Patent, col. 3:27).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Unasserted claim 14 specifies that the "electric airflow sensor is a diaphragm microphone" (’622 Patent, col. 8:48-49). A defendant may argue this disclosure limits the scope of "electric airflow sensor" in asserted claim 13 to a diaphragm microphone or similar acoustic-based sensors, under the doctrine of claim differentiation or by using the disclosure to inform the term's meaning.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "At all times during which defendant imported, made, used, offered to sell and sold electronic diffuser products... defendant had knowledge of the '622 Patent" (Compl. ¶21). This allegation supports the request for enhanced damages, although the complaint does not provide specific facts concerning when or how Defendant allegedly became aware of the patent (Compl. Prayer ¶C).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and technical identity: can the specific term "Single Chip Micyoco" be construed to read on the control circuitry used in the accused "POP" products? The resolution will likely depend on whether the court defines the term broadly as any microcontroller or narrowly based on its unique phrasing in the patent.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: assuming the "Micyoco" term is construed, what evidence can Plaintiff produce to show that the accused devices perform the precise, claimed control functions—specifically, instructing the power source to deliver current for a particular "time period and a magnitude" as a direct result of an airflow sensor signal? The complaint's current allegations lack the technical detail to fully address this functional requirement.