DCT
2:24-cv-12190
VPR Brands LP v. Ashh Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: VPR Brands, LP (Delaware)
- Defendant: ASHH, Inc. (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sriplaw PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-12190, E.D. Mich., 08/20/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan because Defendant has its principal place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Ooze Vape Pen" electronic cigarettes infringe a patent related to the internal construction and control mechanism of such devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic cigarettes, or "vaping" devices, which use an electric heating element to atomize a liquid solution into an inhalable vapor as an alternative to combustible tobacco products.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patent-in-suit via a demand letter dated October 24, 2019. Public records for the patent-in-suit indicate that the patent owner filed a terminal disclaimer on October 27, 2023, disclaiming claims 12, 16, 17, and 18, none of which are explicitly asserted in the current complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-03-24 | ’622 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-06-26 | ’622 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-10-24 | Plaintiff allegedly sent demand letter to Defendant |
| 2023-10-27 | Disclaimer of claims 12, 16, 17, and 18 of the ’622 Patent filed |
| 2024-08-20 | 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’s background section describes prior art electronic cigarettes as being overly complex, costly, and suffering from technical problems including fluid leakage, discontinuous 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 constructed from two main, detachable parts: an "electronic inhaler" containing the power source and control circuitry, and an "integrated electronic atomizer" containing the liquid and heating element (’622 Patent, col. 2:26-30). A key feature is the use of an "electric airflow sensor" to detect the user's puff, which sends a signal to a "Single Chip Micyoco" (microprocessor) that controls the atomization process, replacing less reliable mechanical switches (’622 Patent, col. 3:24-32). This design aims to create a more responsive and reliable user experience.
- Technical Importance: The use of a microprocessor-controlled system based on an electronic airflow sensor was intended to improve the durability and functional consistency of electronic cigarettes compared to earlier, mechanically-activated designs (’622 Patent, col. 3:33-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶30).
- The essential elements of independent claim 13 include:
- An electronic cigarette with a tubular electronic inhaler and a tubular electronic atomizer.
- An electric power source in the inhaler to power the atomizer.
- 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 and instructs the power source to send an electric current to the atomizer, controlling the "time period and a magnitude" of the current.
- The complaint uses general language suggesting it may assert other claims later in the litigation (Compl. ¶29).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names the "OOZE OOZE VAPE PEN" ("Ooze Vape Pen") and other "substantially similar" electronic cigarette products sold by Defendant (Compl. ¶¶15, 20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Ooze Vape Pen is an electronic cigarette comprising an "electronic inhaler" and an "electronic atomizer" (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
- Its functionality is described as including a rechargeable battery that acts as a power source, an "electric airflow sensor" to detect a user's puff, an electric heating wire, and a liquid container (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
- The complaint alleges that a user's inhalation creates an "air inflow, which triggers the atomization process" (Compl. ¶18). 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 accused Ooze Vape Pen is described as an electronic cigarette containing an electronic inhaler and an electronic atomizer. | ¶16, ¶17 | col. 2:26-30 |
| wherein the electronic inhaler includes an electric power source that provides an electric current to the electronic atomizer... | The Ooze Vape Pen allegedly contains a rechargeable battery that functions as a power source to supply electric power to the electronic inhaler. | ¶16 | col. 4:8-13 |
| 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... | The Ooze Vape Pen's inhaler is alleged to include "an electric airflow sensor to detect air movement generated by a user's inhaling or puffing act." The complaint does not explicitly identify a "Single Chip Micyoco" in the accused product. | ¶16 | col. 4:13-18 |
| 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 alleges that a user's inhalation "triggers the atomization process," but does not provide specific facts regarding how the accused device's controller receives a signal or controls the time and magnitude of the current. | ¶18, ¶30 | col. 4:26-33 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The claim recites a "Single Chip Micyoco." A central dispute may arise over whether this term should be construed as a generic single-chip microprocessor or as a specific component, which could significantly impact the infringement analysis.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the presence of an "electric airflow sensor" but does not provide factual detail on the specific controller allegedly used in the Ooze Vape Pen. A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused device’s controller performs the claimed functions of controlling both the "time period" and the "magnitude" of the current in response to the sensor's signal.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "Single Chip Micyoco"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed control system. Its construction will determine whether the claim can read on a wide range of modern electronic cigarettes with generic microprocessors or is limited to a more specific architecture. Practitioners may focus on this term because its unique phrasing creates ambiguity.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification also refers to the component as an "integrated circuit board with a CPU processor," which could support an interpretation that "Single Chip Micyoco" is merely the inventor's chosen name for a generic component (’622 Patent, col. 5:13-14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term is consistently capitalized as a proper noun throughout the patent, and it is not a standard industry term, which may support an argument that it refers to a specific, non-generic component (’622 Patent, claim 13; col. 4:14).
The Term: "electric airflow sensor"
- Context and Importance: The patent's distinction between prior art "mechanical" sensors and its "electric" sensor makes the definition of this term critical. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the sensor in the accused device falls within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "electric airflow sensor" in general terms as a "new technology" that provides a solution to the problems of mechanical devices, which could support a broad construction covering any non-mechanical airflow sensor technology (’622 Patent, col. 3:24-43).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 14, which is not asserted, specifies that the "electric airflow sensor is a diaphragm microphone" (’622 Patent, col. 8:4-5). A defendant may argue that this disclosure narrows the interpretation of the term in independent claim 13 or, through the doctrine of claim differentiation, that the term in claim 13 must encompass technologies distinct from a diaphragm microphone.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by "requesting and encouraging and inducing customers to purchase and use Ooze Vape Pen products" (Compl. ¶34). The pleading does not specify the mechanism of inducement, such as advertising or instructional materials.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the ’622 Patent, purportedly established by a demand letter sent to Defendant on or about October 24, 2019 (Compl. ¶¶21-22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "Single Chip Micyoco," a non-standard term used throughout the patent, be construed to cover the generic microprocessor likely present in the accused Ooze Vape Pen, or is its meaning limited in a way that provides a basis for a non-infringement defense?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused device's control system performs the specific functions required by Claim 13—namely, using a signal from an airflow sensor to actively control both the "time period" and "magnitude" of the current supplied to the heating element? The complaint’s current allegations lack the specific factual support needed to resolve this question.