ITC Keeps Exclusion and Cease-and-Desist Orders in Place Against Stiiizy

Key Takeaways

• The ITC refused to pause import and sales bans against Stiiizy vape devices.
• Stiiizy had sought a stay of limited exclusion and cease-and-desist orders.
• The ITC rejected the request on Friday, keeping the orders in place.
• Stiiizy has appealed to the Federal Circuit and sought emergency relief there.
• Stiiizy says the case involves a novel legal question about the domestic industry requirement.

2Firsts, April 7, 2026

According to Law360, the U.S. International Trade Commission has refused to pause the import and sales bans imposed on cannabis vape company Stiiizy while it pursues an appeal of the agency’s patent infringement ruling in its dispute with rival Pax Labs.

The ITC kept exclusion and cease-and-desist orders in place

Stiiizy Inc. had asked the ITC to stay the limited exclusion and cease-and-desist orders imposed on its vape devices after the agency found that the products infringed Pax Labs’ patents. On Friday, the ITC rejected that request, leaving the orders in effect for now.

The report said Stiiizy argued that it should be granted relief while the Federal Circuit considers what the company described as a novel legal issue concerning the establishment of a domestic industry.

Stiiizy says the case raises a first-impression issue over pre-issuance investments

Stiiizy first filed its motion to stay the remedial orders at the ITC on March 9. When it brought the dispute to the Federal Circuit on March 24, the company also filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and an immediate administrative stay, while its ITC motion remained pending.

On that same day, the appellate court ordered the ITC to make a determination on the motion by April 9 while the court considers its own decision. The ITC did not explain in detail why it denied the stay request.

In its ITC filing, Stiiizy said that to obtain a stay it needed to satisfy two requirements: that the ITC had ruled on an “admittedly difficult legal question,” and that the balance of harms favors a stay.

According to the report, in its September 2025 affirmation, the ITC agreed with an administrative law judge’s finding that Pax Labs had satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement as it related to the contested vape products. The ITC said a complainant can establish domestic industry through investments that predate the issuance of a patent, and said that approach was consistent with two Federal Circuit decisions.

Stiiizy, however, said the issue of “pre-issuance investments” is one of first impression for the ITC and has never been addressed by the Federal Circuit.

Stiiizy says immediate enforcement would cause irreparable harm

Stiiizy argued that the ITC, for the first time, held that pre-issuance investments count, and that the decision is at least debatable. The company noted that the ITC’s own Office of Unfair Import Investigations and the administrative law judge had initially concluded that such investments should not count toward domestic industry.

The report said the administrative law judge reached the disputed decision on remand after the ITC found that his original ruling was erroneous because it treated pre-issuance investments as categorically excluded from the domestic industry requirement.

Stiiizy said it would be fundamentally unfair to allow its business to be destroyed while the Federal Circuit considers what it described as an unsettled and difficult legal question. The company also said it would suffer “extraordinary and irreparable harm” if the exclusion order takes immediate effect, and that those harms would not be reversible even if it later prevails at the Federal Circuit. Details of the alleged harms were redacted in the public filings.

At the same time, Stiiizy argued that Pax Labs would not suffer similar harm if the orders were stayed, saying that most of Pax Labs’ revenue comes from sources unrelated to the patents at issue.

Image source: Law360