Notice2026-04908
Certain Disposable Vaporizer Devices; Notice of Final Commission Determination of No Violation; Termination of Investigation
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 13, 2026
Issuing agencies
International Trade Commission
Abstract
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission ("Commission") has determined to reverse the violation findings of the final initial determination ("FID") issued by the presiding administrative law judge ("ALJ") in this investigation and find that asserted claims 4 and 12, and claim 1 on which they depend, of U.S. Patent No. 11,925,202 ("the 202 patent") are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 ("section 103"), and thus there is no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 ("section 337"). The Commission has also determined to take no position on whether the complainants satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. The Commission otherwise adopts the findings of the FID to the extent they do not conflict with the attached opinion, with some modifications to supplement its finding that claims 4 and 12 are not anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 ("section 102"). This investigation is hereby terminated with a finding of no violation.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 49 (Friday, March 13, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 49 (Friday, March 13, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12444-12446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-04908]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1410]
Certain Disposable Vaporizer Devices; Notice of Final Commission
Determination of No Violation; Termination of Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission (``Commission'') has determined to reverse the violation
findings of the final initial determination (``FID'') issued by the
presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') in this investigation and
find that asserted claims 4 and 12, and claim 1 on which they depend,
of U.S. Patent No. 11,925,202 (``the 202 patent'') are invalid as
obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (``section 103''), and thus there is no
violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''). The Commission has also determined to
take no position on whether the complainants satisfied the economic
prong of the domestic industry requirement. The Commission otherwise
adopts the findings of the FID to the extent they do not conflict with
the attached opinion, with some modifications to supplement its finding
that claims 4 and 12 are not anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 (``section
102''). This investigation is hereby terminated with a finding of no
violation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Bretscher, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2382. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at <a href="https://edis.usitc.gov">https://edis.usitc.gov</a>. For help accessing EDIS, please email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96d3d2dfc5a5def3fae6d6e3e5ffe2f5b8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="480d0c011b7b002d2438083d3b213c2b662f273e">[email protected]</span></a>. General information concerning the Commission may
also be obtained by accessing its internet server at <a href="https://www.usitc.gov">https://www.usitc.gov</a>. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal
on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on July 22, 2024, based on a complaint, as supplemented, filed by R.J.
Reynolds Vapor Company; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; RAI Strategic
Holdings, Inc.; and RAI Services Company of Winston-Salem, North
Carolina (collectively, ``Reynolds'' or ``Complainant'') accusing the
respondents of violating section 337 by importing into the United
States, selling for importation, or selling in the United States after
importation certain disposable vaporizer devices that infringe one or
more of the asserted claims of the 202 patent. 89 FR 59158-60 (Jul. 22,
2024). The complaint further alleges that a domestic industry exists in
the United States.
The Commission's notice of investigation names thirty-five (35)
named respondents, of which eighteen (18) respondents participated in
the investigation, fifteen (15) respondents were found in default, and
two (2) respondents were terminated on the basis of consent orders and
consent order stipulations. The eighteen (18) respondents that
participated in this investigation are: Breeze Smoke, LLC of
Southfield, Michigan; Dongguan (Shenzhen) Shikai Technology Co., Ltd.
of Dongguan, China; Guangdong Qisitech Co., Ltd. of Dongguan City,
China; Guangdong Fewo Intelligent Manufacturing Ltd. of Dongguan City,
China; Guangdong Cellular Workshop Electronics Technology Co., Ltd. of
Dongguan City, China; Zhuhai Qisitech Co., Ltd. of Zhuhai, China;
Shenzhen Han Technology Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; Shenzhen IVPS
Technology Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; Maduro Distributors d/b/a The
Loon of Fridley,
[[Page 12445]]
Minnesota; Shenzhen Yanyang Technology Co., Ltd. of Huizhou, China;
Pastel Cartel, LLC of Austin, Texas; American Vape Company, LLC of
Pflugerville, Texas; Affiliated Imports, LLC of Austin, Texas; Shenzhen
Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; Shenzhen Pingray
Technology Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen City, China; SV3, LLC d/b/a Mi-One
Brands of Phoenix, Arizona; Price Point Distributors Inc. d/b/a Price
Point NY of Farmingdale, New York; and TheSy, LLC d/b/a Element Vape of
El Monte, California (collectively, ``Respondents''). FID at 6-9. The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') is also as a party.
89 FR at 59160.
The fifteen (15) respondents found in default are: Vapeonly
Technology Co. Ltd. of Hong Kong; iMiracle (Shenzhen) Technology Co.,
Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; Nevera (HK) Ltd. of Hong Kong; Wonder Ladies
Ltd. of British Virgin Islands; Sailing South Ltd. of British Virgin
Islands; Marea Morada Ltd. of British Virgin Islands; Social Brands,
LLC of Dallas, Texas; Palma Terra Ltd. of British Virgin Islands;
Heaven Gifts International Ltd. of Hong Kong; Shenzhen LC Technology
Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; LCF Labs, Inc. of Ontario, California;
Flumgio Technology Ltd. of Hong Kong; Flawless Vape Shop Inc. of
Anaheim, California; Flawless Vape Wholesale & Distribution Inc. of
Anaheim, California; and VICA Trading Inc. d/b/a Vapesourcing of
Tustin, California (collectively, ``Defaulting Respondents''). See
Order No. 17 (Sept. 16, 2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Oct. 8,
2024).
The two (2) respondents that were terminated from this
investigation are: Kimsun Technology (HuiZhou) Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen,
China and Bidi Vapor, LLC of Orlando, Florida. Order No. 10 (Aug. 28,
2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Sept. 23, 2024); Order No. 26 (Nov.
5, 2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Dec. 5, 2024).
On June 11, 2024, the same date it filed its complaint, Reynolds
filed a motion for a temporary exclusion order (``TEO''). Respondents
filed a joint memorandum in opposition to Reynolds's motion for a TEO
on August 12, 2024. The presiding ALJ held an evidentiary hearing on
September 26 and 27, and October 8, 2024. On November 19, 2024, the ALJ
issued an ID denying Reynolds's motion for a TEO, which the Commission
determined not to review. Order No. 28 (Nov. 19. 2024), unreviewed by
Comm'n Notice (Dec. 18, 2024).
On May 1, 2025, the Commission partially terminated the
investigation with respect to claims 3, 8, 10, 13, 17-27, and 29-30 of
the '202 patent due to voluntary withdrawal of the claims. Order No. 44
(Apr. 7, 2025), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (May 1, 2025).
On March 14, 2025, the presiding ALJ issued a Markman order
construing the disputed claim terms. Order No. 34 (Mar. 14, 2025). The
ALJ held an evidentiary hearing from April 7-11, 2025, with an
additional day of testimony on domestic industry on June 11, 2025. By
that time, Reynolds was asserting claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 12, and 15 of the
'202 patent for purposes of infringement, and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9,
and 14-16 for purposes of domestic industry.
On August 29, 2025, the ALJ issued the present FID, finding that
Respondents violated section 337 by way of infringing claims 4 and 12
of the 202 patent, and that neither claim is invalid as anticipated or
obvious under 35 U.S.C. 102 or section 103, respectively. FID at 189-
90. The FID found that Respondents also infringed claims 1, 11, and 15,
but those claims are invalid as anticipated. Id. The FID also found
that Reynolds satisfied both the technical and economic prongs of the
domestic industry requirement. Id. at 98, 117, 121, 182.
On September 12, 2025, the ALJ issued a Recommended Determination
on Remedy, Bonding, and Public Interest (``RD''), recommending that the
Commission issue a general exclusion order (``GEO'') in the event a
violation is found, or, in the alternative, a limited exclusion order
covering infringing articles imported by or on behalf of each
respondent found to have violated section 337 and each defaulting
respondent. RD at 3, 26, 30. The ALJ also recommended that the
Commission issue cease and desist orders against certain respondents
and set a bond of 136% of the entered value of infringing articles
imported during the period of Presidential review. Id. at 3, 40, 44.
The ALJ further recommended finding that the public interest factors do
not preclude issuance of a remedy. Id.
On September 15, 2025, the Commission issued a notice requesting
submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief,
should the Commission find a violation. 90 FR 45056 (Sept. 18, 2025).
The Commission issued a second notice on November 18, 2025, and
extended the deadline for responses because the original deadline
expired during the shutdown of the Federal Government. 90 FR 52700
(Nov. 21, 2025).
On September 15, 2025, Respondents filed a petition for review of
the FID, including its construction of the claim term ``smoking
article'' and its findings that claims 4 and 12 are infringed,
literally or by equivalence, as well as its findings that claims 4 and
12 are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior art.
On September 23, 2025, Reynolds and OUII filed their respective
responses to Respondents' petition for review. Neither Reynolds nor
OUII filed a petition for review of their own and have thus waived any
objections they may have had to the FID's findings that claims 1, 9,
11, and 15 of the '202 patent are invalid as anticipated, per
Commission Rule 210.43(b)(4), 19 CFR 210.43(b)(4).
On January 9, 2026, the Commission determined to review the FID in
part, including its findings that: (i) claims 4 and 12 are not invalid
as anticipated under section 102; (ii) claims 4 and 12 are not invalid
as obvious under section 103; and (iii) Reynolds satisfied the domestic
industry requirement. 91 FR 1555-57 (Jan. 14, 2026). The Commission did
not review, and has thus adopted, the FID's findings on claim
construction, infringement, and invalidity of claims 1, 9, 11, and 15
(except to the extent that claims 4 and 12 depend on claim 1). See id.
at 1556.
On January 23, 2026, Reynolds, Respondents, and OUII filed their
initial submissions in response to the Commission's January 9, 2026,
notice. On January 30, 2026, Reynolds, Respondents, and OUII submitted
their respective replies in each other's submissions.
The Commission has also received submissions from two third
parties. On December 1, 2025, non-parties NJOY, LLC, Altria Group
Distribution Company, and Altria Client Service LLC (collectively,
``NJOY'') submitted a response to the Commission's second request for
public interest submissions. On January 23, 2026, NJOY submitted a
second submission in response to the Commission's notice of partial
review and request for public submissions. On the same date, the
Commission received a submission from Vapor Technology Association, a
U.S. trade association representing manufacturers, distributors,
retailers, wholesalers, suppliers, and other vapor technology
businesses in the United States.
Upon review of the FID, the parties' submissions, and the evidence
of record, the Commission has determined to reverse the FID and find
that claims 4 and 12, and claim 1 on which they depend, are invalid as
obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103, as set forth in the attached opinion. The
Commission has also determined to take no position on whether Reynolds
satisfied the economic prong of the domestic
[[Page 12446]]
industry requirement. The Commission otherwise adopts the remaining
findings of the FID, with some modifications to supplement its finding
that Respondents failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that
either claim 4 or claim 12 is invalid as anticipated under section 102.
Accordingly, this investigation is terminated with a finding of no
violation of section 337.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on March 10,
2026.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and
in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 10, 2026.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2026-04908 Filed 3-12-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 13, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.