Electronic smoking devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
4 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 4 total
NJOY, LLC et al. v.JUUL Labs, Inc. et al.
NJOY has filed an IPR petition challenging JUUL’s U.S. Pat. 12,156,533 covering nicotine‑salt e‑cigarette formulations. The petition argues anticipation under §102 and obviousness under §103 based on the Sebastian and Lechuga‑Ballesteros references.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Ecto World and SV3 seek Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against RAI Strategic Holdings’ ‘202 patent covering disposable vaporizer devices. The petition argues the Board misapplied the Advanced Bionics framework and improperly limited its review to two pages of the petition.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Ecto World petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 11,925,202 covering an electrically‑powered vaping article, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over Takeuchi, Pienemann, Kim and Susa references and lack written‑description support.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology opposes RAI Strategic Holdings' Director Review request, arguing that RAI introduced a new Fintiv argument after institution, contrary to USPTO guidance, and that the Board already addressed all raised issues.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.