DCT

4:24-cv-12190

VPR Brands LP v. Ashh Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: VPR Brands, LP (Delaware/Florida)
- Defendant: Ashh, Inc. (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sriplaw PLLC
Case Identification: 2:24-cv-12190, E.D. Mich., 08/20/2024
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having its principal place of business in the Eastern District of Michigan.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic cigarette products infringe a patent related to the internal components and control systems of vaping devices.
Technical Context: The technology concerns the design of electronic cigarettes, focusing on the use of an electronic sensor and microprocessor to control the vaporization of a liquid to simulate smoking.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a demand letter to Defendant on October 24, 2019. Public records associated with the patent indicate that the patent owner filed a disclaimer on October 27, 2023, for claims 12, 16, 17, and 18. This disclaimer narrows the scope of the patent and may be relevant to the construction of the remaining asserted claims.

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 filed
2024-08-20	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,205,622 - "Electronic Cigarette"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,205,622, "Electronic Cigarette," issued June 26, 2012 (the ’622 Patent).

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art electronic cigarettes as having several drawbacks, including complex and costly manufacturing, fluid leakage, and the use of mechanical airflow detectors with short lifespans that are sensitive to environmental changes (’622 Patent, col. 2:5-12).
The Patented Solution: The invention is an electronic cigarette architecture composed of two main detachable parts: a "tubular electronic inhaler" (containing the power source and control electronics) and a "tubular electronic atomizer" (containing the liquid and heating element) (’622 Patent, col. 2:25-30). To overcome the reliability issues of prior art sensors, the invention uses an electric airflow sensor that detects a user's puff. This sensor sends a signal to a "Single Chip Micyoco" (microprocessor), which then controls the power supplied to the heating element to vaporize a liquid, completing a "cycle of vaporizing process from which the user gets satisfaction of 'smoking.'" (’622 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:52-64).
Technical Importance: The use of an electric sensor and microprocessor-based control sought to provide a more reliable and consistent user experience compared to the purely mechanical or simpler electronic systems that preceded it, making the puffing action "much easier and smoother" (’622 Patent, col. 3:38-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶30).
Claim 13 recites the following essential elements:
- A tubular electronic inhaler and a tubular electronic atomizer.
- An electric power source in the inhaler that provides current to the atomizer.
- An electric airflow sensor used to detect airflow and send a signal to a "Single Chip Micyoco" to turn the power source on and off.
- The "Single Chip Micyoco" receives the signal and instructs the power source to send an electric current of a specific "time period and a magnitude."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "OOZE OOZE VAPE PEN" ("Ooze Vape Pen") and other "substantially similar" products sold by Defendant (Compl. ¶15, ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Ooze Vape Pen as an electronic cigarette containing a rechargeable battery, an electronic inhaler, and an electronic atomizer (Compl. ¶15-17).
Crucially, it is alleged to include an "electric airflow sensor to detect air movement generated by a user's inhaling or puffing act" (Compl. ¶16).
This detected airflow is alleged to "trigger[] the atomization process that converts a solution to a gas emulating the smoking process" (Compl. ¶18).
The complaint does not provide specific details about the accused product's control circuitry or its market position.
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...	Defendant’s Ooze Vape Pen is described as an electronic cigarette containing an electronic inhaler and an electronic atomizer.	¶16-17	col. 2:25-30
...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.	¶16	col. 4:8-12
...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 allegedly includes an "electric airflow sensor to detect air movement generated by a user's inhaling or puffing act." The complaint does not explicitly allege the presence of a "Single Chip Micyoco" in the accused product.	¶16	col. 4:12-18
...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 the airflow sensor's detection of air movement "triggers the atomization process." It does not provide specific facts about a microprocessor controlling the time and magnitude of the current.	¶18	col. 4:18-34

Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory hinges on the function of the accused "electric airflow sensor." A central question will be whether the Ooze Vape Pen contains control circuitry that performs the functions of the claimed "Single Chip Micyoco," specifically receiving a signal from the sensor and then instructing the power source to deliver a current of a particular "magnitude" and for a specific "time period." The complaint does not allege specific facts to support this element.
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on the definition of "Single Chip Micyoco." Because this appears to be a coined term not standard in the art, its construction will be critical. The dispute will likely focus on whether this term can be interpreted broadly to cover any microprocessor-based controller found in the accused device, or if it carries a more limited meaning based on the patent's disclosure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "Single Chip Micyoco"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the asserted independent claim but is not a standard technical term, suggesting it is a neologism or a typographical error for "microcontroller." Its construction is central to the infringement analysis, as the complaint does not allege the presence of a component with this name in the accused product. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will likely determine whether the accused product's control system can meet the claim limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification associates this term with a "CPU processor" and an "integrated circuit board with a CPU processor," suggesting it refers to a general-purpose microprocessor that executes "embedded software instructions" to control the device's operation (’622 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 5:14; col. 2:55-56).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the patentee, by coining a unique term, intended a specific meaning limited to the embodiments disclosed. The consistent use of this specific phrase throughout the patent could be argued to distinguish it from any generic microprocessor.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a count for induced infringement, alleging that Defendant encouraged its customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶34). The complaint provides a conclusory allegation without citing specific evidence, such as user manuals or advertising, that would show active inducement.
Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the ’622 Patent at least as of October 24, 2019, due to a demand letter sent by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶21-22). This alleged pre-suit knowledge forms the basis of the request for a finding of willful infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶A).

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

A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the coined term "Single Chip Micyoco," which is not a standard term of art, be construed to read on the control circuitry used in the accused Ooze Vape Pen? The outcome of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive.
A key evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence: what evidence will Plaintiff produce to show that the accused product's control system performs the specific functions recited in Claim 13—namely, controlling both the "time period" and the "magnitude" of the electric current in response to a signal from an airflow sensor? The complaint currently lacks factual specificity on this point.
A third question concerns the impact of the patent's prosecution and post-grant history: how might the patentee's recent disclaimer of four system-level claims (12, 16, 17, and 18) be used by the defense to argue for a narrower construction of the remaining asserted claims?