DCT
2:25-cv-14873
VPR Brands LP v. Boulder Intl Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: VPR Brands, LP (Delaware)
- Defendant: Boulder International Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sriplaw PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-14873, D.N.J., 08/25/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant has a principal place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of electronic cigarette products infringes a patent related to the core components and control systems of such devices.
- Technical Context: The technology pertains to electronic cigarettes ("vapes"), which are devices designed to heat a liquid solution into an aerosol for inhalation, simulating the act of smoking.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was the subject of two unsuccessful inter partes review (IPR) challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB’s refusal to invalidate the asserted claims in those proceedings may be raised by the Plaintiff to argue for the patent's strength and validity.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-03-24 | ’622 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-06-26 | ’622 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-08-25 | 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’s background section describes prior art electronic cigarettes as suffering from several drawbacks, including being too complex and costly for mass production, prone to fluid leakage, and reliant on mechanical airflow detectors with short lifespans and sensitivity to environmental changes (’622 Patent, col. 2:5-12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an electronic cigarette comprised of two main, detachable parts: an "electronic inhaler" containing the power source and control electronics, and an "electronic atomizer" containing the heating element and liquid solution (’622 Patent, col. 2:26-30). The device uses an "electric" airflow sensor to detect a user’s puff, which sends a signal to a microprocessor. The microprocessor then controls the supply of power to the atomizer's heating wire to vaporize the liquid (’622 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:12-22). This design, particularly the integrated and disposable atomizer, is presented as a more reliable and sanitary solution (’622 Patent, col. 3:6-9).
- Technical Importance: The claimed use of a microprocessor-controlled system activated by an electronic sensor represented an effort to improve the reliability, responsiveness, and lifespan of electronic cigarettes compared to earlier, mechanically-activated designs (’622 Patent, col. 3:32-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint specifically asserts infringement of independent claim 13 (’622 Patent, col. 8:11-20; Compl. ¶¶ 21, 30).
- 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 current to the atomizer.
- The cigarette includes 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, in response, instructs the power source to send an electric current to the atomizer for a specific "time period and a magnitude."
- The complaint's phrasing "including but not limited to Claim 13" suggests the right to assert other claims may be reserved (Compl. ¶21).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as the Boulder Pro, Boulder Twilight, Boulder Rock, Boulder Bottle 9000, Boulder Diamond Bar, Boulder Mintz 3D Bar, Boulder Mintz 25K, Boulder Mini, and other substantially similar products (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are electronic cigarettes that operate by using a rechargeable battery to power an electronic inhaler (Compl. ¶18).
- The products are alleged to incorporate an "electric airflow sensor" that detects a user's inhalation (Compl. ¶18).
- This sensor allegedly "triggers the atomization process" in which an electronic atomizer with a heating wire and liquid container "converts a solution to a gas" for inhalation through an air-puffing hole (Compl. ¶¶19-20).
- The complaint does not provide detail on the market positioning of the Accused Products.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’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 Products are electronic cigarettes that contain an electronic inhaler and an electronic atomizer. | ¶18-19 | col. 2:26-30 |
| ...wherein the electronic inhaler includes an electric power source that provides an electric current to the electronic atomizer... | The Accused Products contain rechargeable batteries that function as a power source to supply electric power to the electronic inhaler and atomizer. | ¶18-19 | 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 and sending a signal to a Single Chip Micyoco... | The Accused Products include an electric airflow sensor to detect air movement from a user's inhalation, which triggers the atomization process. | ¶18, 20 | col. 2:51-54 |
| ...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 user's inhalation creates an air inflow that "triggers the atomization process that converts a solution to a gas." | ¶20 | col. 2:54-58 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "Single Chip Micyoco." The question for the court will be whether this term, which is not standard in the art, should be construed broadly to cover any generic microprocessor or microcontroller found in the Accused Products, or if it has a narrower meaning specific to the patent's disclosure.
- Technical Questions: Claim 13 requires the "Single Chip Micyoco" to control both a "time period and a magnitude of the electric current." The complaint alleges the sensor "triggers the atomization process" (Compl. ¶20), but it does not provide specific facts showing that the Accused Products' control systems regulate both the duration and the intensity of the current as required by the claim. The case may turn on evidence of how the accused devices' electronics actually function.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "Single Chip Micyoco"
- Context and Importance: This term appears throughout the asserted claim and specification. Its construction is critical because if interpreted narrowly, it could be difficult for the Plaintiff to prove that the standard microcontrollers in Defendant's products meet this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term as it is a potential non-infringement defense.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification appears to use the term interchangeably with more generic terms. For example, the description of Figure 1 refers to "the single chip micyoco 3" (’622 Patent, col. 4:14-15) while the figure itself labels component 3 as an "Electric Circuit Board with CPU Microprocessor" (’622 Patent, Fig. 1). This could support an argument that "Single Chip Micyoco" simply means a standard microprocessor.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the patentee’s consistent choice to use this unique term in the claims, rather than the common term "microprocessor," implies a specific meaning or structure that is distinct from a generic controller.
The Term: "instructs the electric power source to send...a time period and a magnitude of the electric current"
- Context and Importance: This element defines the specific function of the controller. The dispute will likely focus on whether the Accused Products perform this precise dual-control function. Infringement will depend on whether the accused devices merely have an on/off function triggered by airflow or a more sophisticated system that modulates both current duration and level.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a system where the current supplied is "proportional to the strength of user's puffing action" (’622 Patent, col. 4:28-30), which could support a reading that covers any variable power output tied to airflow.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites control of both "time period" and "magnitude." A device that only controls one of these parameters (e.g., a fixed-power device that stays on as long as the user inhales) might be argued to not meet this limitation. The patent's goal to "closely mimic[] the process of cigarette smoking" (’622 Patent, col. 4:31-32) may suggest that a nuanced, multi-variable control function is required.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- Plaintiff requests a finding of willful infringement in its prayer for relief (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶A). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts alleging that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’622 Patent or engaged in conduct rising to the level of egregious behavior typically required for such a finding.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the idiosyncratic term "Single Chip Micyoco" be interpreted broadly enough to read on the generic microcontrollers likely used in Defendant's modern electronic cigarettes, or is it limited to a specific component described in the patent?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical function: does the complaint's general allegation that inhalation "triggers the atomization process" translate to proof that the accused devices' processors specifically control both the "time period" and "magnitude" of the electrical current, as explicitly required by the asserted claim?