[2Firsts Report] In February 2025, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a final ruling, finding that NJOY's ACE product infringed a key patent held by JUUL Labs. This ruling not only banned NJOY and its parent company, Altria, from selling related products in the U.S. but also marked a decisive step in JUUL’s patent enforcement strategy.
The patent in question, US10709173B2, protects the "pod sidewall airflow channel" structure. The case’s significance extends beyond the technical dispute between JUUL and NJOY, signaling a shift in the U.S. e-cigarette industry’s regulatory landscape.
2Firsts connected with attorney Liu Peiling from Tianyuan Law Firm to understand the patent structure controversy, the evolution of the litigation strategy, and its practical impact on China’s e-cigarette industry.
I. JUUL vs. NJOY: A Timeline of the Lawsuit
- June 30, 2023: JUUL Labs and its subsidiary, VMR Products LLC, filed a Section 337 investigation request with the ITC, accusing NJOY's ACE product of infringing several patents, including US10709173B2.
- August 22, 2023: NJOY initiated a patent invalidation procedure (IPR) to challenge the validity of JUUL's patent.
- December 5, 2024: ITC administrative judge issued a preliminary ruling, finding NJOY's ACE product infringed.
- January 29, 2025: ITC issued a final ruling and an injunction.
- March 31, 2025: The presidential review period ended, and the injunction became effective.
- Early April 2025: Altria announced the cessation of the sale of related products.
Attorney Liu Peiling commented: "JUUL not only successfully defended its patent rights but also sent a clear message to the industry—compliance is no longer just a formality, but a substantive barrier."
II. ALD Lawsuit Escalates
Shortly after the NJOY case began, JUUL’s affiliate PAX Labs filed another Section 337 investigation with the ITC on January 30, 2024, accusing Chinese manufacturer ALD Group Limited (ALD) of infringing four U.S. patents.
- February 29, 2024: ITC formally initiated the investigation, case number 337-TA-1392.
- July 2024: Some patent claims were dropped, but the case is still under review.
- As of April 2025: No final ruling has been issued.
After Altria exited as a shareholder, JUUL demonstrated its confidence in making a comeback by initiating a Section 337 investigation. This move has boosted market confidence and attracted continued investment from investors.
"From brand owners to manufacturers, JUUL's litigation strategy demonstrates its depth in patent enforcement," said Liu Peiling. "This is a direct warning to Chinese factories exporting to the U.S."
III. Core Patent Overview and Infringement Logic
The patent at the center of JUUL's victory, US10709173B2, defines a system where the pod's outer wall and the device’s internal chamber together form an airflow path, directing air through a heating area to mix into aerosol, which is then expelled through the mouthpiece.
ITC ruled that NJOY ACE used a substantially identical structure, resulting in infringement. NJOY attempted to challenge the obviousness of this structure by citing the Verleur patent, but the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not support their argument.
"This patent defines the airflow path structure with great precision," explained Liu Peiling. "Even if a design appears ‘conventional,’ as long as it forms an identical system combination as described in the patent, it may still constitute infringement."
IV. Will JUUL Continue Filing Lawsuits?
Given JUUL's current actions, it is highly likely that the company will continue to file more patent lawsuits, potentially expanding the scope of its targets.
First, JUUL is using patent enforcement as a tool to reshape its market position. During its brand rebuilding and capital operations, patents have become one of its most effective strategies. This victory not only showcases its patent strength but also signals to investors and regulators that JUUL is shedding its former "non-compliant" image and using "pod-based" designs to highlight the dangers of "disposable" products.
Second, JUUL and its affiliate PAX Labs still hold numerous structural patents covering pod connections, airflow direction, vaporization heating, electrode interfaces, and other areas. These patents have not been fully enforced yet.
Third, as regulatory environments in the U.S. and Europe continue to tighten, JUUL has room to clear out illegal products through litigation and expand its market share in the legal market.
In summary, potential future targets of JUUL's litigation could include:
- Pod-based e-cigarettes and CBD products.
- Disposable e-cigarettes with similar structures that may constitute equivalent infringement.
- Brands using similar structures without authorization.
- ODM manufacturers or design firms.
- New devices on developed markets without proper authorization.
For manufacturers, brand owners, and design teams targeting the U.S. or European markets, it is essential to reassess whether their products may infringe on "airflow channel" patents and prepare for potential litigation.
V. Industry Impact: Patent Strategies and Export Risks
JUUL’s patent victory and ongoing litigation against ALD highlight its strategy of reinforcing its market authority based on patents.
"JUUL’s current strategy may also serve its financing and brand revitalization plans," said Liu Peiling.
For Chinese e-cigarette companies, the risks cannot be ignored. Manufacturers producing closed-system pod-based e-cigarettes or CBD devices should focus on the following before exporting:
- Whether they use a dual-side clamping airflow structure.
- Whether their design references JUUL products.
- Whether a Freedom to Operate (FTO) analysis has been conducted.
"From suing NJOY to suing ALD, JUUL’s focus is no longer on individual products but on defining the entire structural form," Liu Peiling added.
VI. Conclusion
The JUUL vs. NJOY patent dispute is not just a technical fight but reflects the tightening regulatory landscape in the U.S., where intellectual property has become an unavoidable compliance barrier.
2Firsts has observed that many e-cigarette manufacturers are still in the "copycat design" phase, attempting to avoid infringement through cosmetic differences without a thorough understanding of U.S. e-cigarette patents, and they have not seriously undertaken avoidance design. JUUL's recent actions indicate that a new compliance era has arrived.
Compliance will be the "first gate" for brands to enter developed markets like the U.S. and Europe.
From an industrial perspective, e-cigarette manufacturers should treat the JUUL patent case as a key reference and systematically review their product structures while advancing internal intellectual property compliance mechanisms. With patents becoming a new tool in international competition, proactive preparation is far more important than reactive measures.
(Above content is based on an interview with Liu Peiling, attorney at Tianyuan Law Firm, conducted by 2Firsts.)
