Key Points
- Shenzhen SKE Technology has been ordered to provide £569,039 ($776,000) in security for costs, below the £880,000 sought by the defendants.
- SKE is 51%-owned by Shenzhen Yinghe Technology Co., Ltd.
- The proceedings concern SKE’s UK Registered Design No. 6213529 and include claims relating to its CRYSTAL-branded vape products.
- The court’s security order was driven primarily by insufficient disclosure of SKE’s own financial position, rather than simply by the company being based in China.
- The £569,039 is not a fine or damages award. A 14-day trial window on substantive liability is scheduled to begin on January 11, 2027.
2Firsts
August 21, 2026
Chinese vape manufacturer Shenzhen SKE Technology Co., Ltd. has been ordered by the UK High Court to provide £569,039 ($776,000) in security for costs as it pursues design infringement proceedings against Vapepen London and other defendants over its Crystal Bar vape product, MLex reported on August 20. A High Court judgment published the same day shows that a 14-day trial window on substantive liability is currently scheduled to begin on January 11, 2027.
The £569,039 represents security for litigation costs rather than a fine or an award of damages. The court has not yet ruled on the merits of SKE’s underlying infringement claims.
SKE is a Chinese vape manufacturer controlled by Shenzhen-listed Shenzhen Yinghe Technology Co., Ltd., which holds a 51% stake in the company.
SKE Pursues Claims Over Crystal Bar Design
The High Court proceedings are titled Shenzhen SKE Technology Co. Ltd v Vapepen London Ltd & Ors, under case number HP-2024-000022.
SKE brought the proceedings against Vapepen London Ltd, Parmeet Singh Kukreja, Bargain Busting Limited and Tarlochan Singh Bindra.
The dispute concerns UK Registered Design No. 6213529, which SKE relies on in connection with its vape products. SKE alleges registered design infringement and has also advanced passing-off claims relating to CRYSTAL-branded vape products.
The defendants deny the allegations and have challenged, among other issues, the validity of SKE’s registered design and the goodwill relied upon in its claims.
The August 20 ruling does not determine those substantive issues. It addresses whether SKE must provide security against costs that could become recoverable by the defendants if they ultimately prevail.
Court Sets Security at £569,039, Below £880,000 Requested
The defendants sought approximately £880,000 in security from SKE.
High Court Judge Daniel Dovar ultimately ordered SKE to provide a total of £569,039, to be paid in stages.
Under the order, £77,000 is due by 4 p.m. on September 11, 2026; £42,039 is due three weeks before the pre-trial review; and the largest installment of £450,000 is due three weeks before the first day of trial.
If SKE fails to provide the required security, the proceedings will be automatically stayed, after which the defendants may apply to have the claim struck out.
SKE’s Financial Disclosure Drives Security Order
A central issue was whether SKE would be able to meet a potential adverse costs order if it ultimately lost the proceedings.
In seeking to demonstrate its ability to pay, SKE relied on financial information relating to its UK subsidiary, SKE E-CIGS UK, and its majority shareholder, Shenzhen Yinghe Technology, while declining to disclose its own full financial position.
Dovar found that information insufficient to resolve concerns about SKE’s ability to meet a potential costs order.
“I do not fully understand why, when SKE provided some accounts of its parent on a confidential basis, that it could not have done the same with its own accounts,” Dovar said, according to MLex.
The court did not find that SKE lacked financial resources. The judgment indicated that the company appeared to generate significant profits, but the absence of its own accounts and sufficient information about liabilities, secured assets and other financial matters prevented the court from reaching a clear assessment of its current financial capacity.
The court therefore found reason to believe that SKE might be unable to meet a potential adverse costs order and ordered security.
Court Rejects Key Argument Over Enforcement in China
Another issue concerned whether a UK costs order could be effectively enforced against SKE in China.
The defendants argued that they could face significant obstacles recovering costs because SKE is based in China, drawing in part on difficulties surrounding the enforcement of foreign intellectual property judgments.
Dovar did not accept that difficulty in enforcing foreign IP rights in China could simply be extended to monetary costs orders.
MLex reported that the judge acknowledged the difficulty of enforcing foreign IP rights in China and noted that no IP judgment from a UK court has to date been enforced there. However, he found no indication that recovering costs or damages would necessarily face the same difficulties.
The High Court's reasoning distinguished between enforcement of intellectual property judgments and orders requiring the payment of money.
The decisive issue behind the security order was therefore SKE’s incomplete financial disclosure rather than its status as a China-based company alone.
Substantive Crystal Bar Dispute Heads Toward 2027 Trial
Crystal Bar is among SKE’s vape product lines marketed in the UK. The current proceedings form part of a broader series of UK intellectual property disputes involving SKE and CRYSTAL-related rights.
According to the High Court’s August 20 judgment, a 14-day trial on substantive liability has been listed in a window beginning January 11, 2027.
The £569,039 security order therefore does not mean that SKE has won or lost its Crystal Bar design infringement case.
The substantive proceedings will determine SKE’s infringement and related claims, together with the defendants’ challenges and defenses.
Follow 2Firsts for the latest developments in the global vaping and next-generation tobacco industries, including corporate, intellectual property and market developments.
Cover Image Source: nationalarchives
Disclaimer
This article is provided solely for professional research, industry discussion, and informational purposes. Any references to brands, companies, products, technologies, or policies are made for factual reporting and analytical purposes only, and do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, promotion, or advertising by 2Firsts.
Nicotine-containing products, including but not limited to cigarettes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches, carry significant health risks. Readers are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions, including age restrictions and access limitations.
The information contained in this article should not be regarded as investment, legal, medical, regulatory, or commercial advice. While 2Firsts strives to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its content, it does not assume liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from errors, omissions, inaccuracies, or reliance on the information contained herein.
This article is not intended for individuals below the legal age for accessing tobacco or nicotine-related information in their jurisdiction.
Copyright Notice
This article is either original content produced by 2Firsts or content reproduced, translated, summarized, or adapted from third-party sources with attribution where applicable. The intellectual property rights of the original content remain with 2Firsts or the respective original rights holders.
No individual or organization may copy, reproduce, distribute, republish, modify, translate, or otherwise use this content without prior authorization. Any unauthorized use may result in legal action.
For copyright-related inquiries, corrections, or removal requests, please contact: info@2firsts.com.
AI-Assisted Translation and Editing Notice
Portions of this article may have been translated, edited, or reviewed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools to improve efficiency and readability. Due to the limitations of AI-assisted translation and editing, discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies may exist when compared with the original source.
Where applicable, readers are advised to refer to the original source for the most complete and accurate information. If you identify any errors or believe that any content infringes upon your rights, please contact us at info@2firsts.com, and we will review and address the matter promptly.
