Key Points
- The FDA authorized the JUUL2 device and two 1.6% pods on August 28.
- AJ Marketing sued JUUL Labs on September 3 in Delaware federal court, alleging infringement by JUUL 1 and JUUL2.
- The patent covers programmable vaporization controls, including limits on maximum dose or activations within a defined period.
- The plaintiff seeks reasonable royalties and ongoing royalties; the litigation is at an early stage and has not affected JUUL2’s existing FDA marketing authorization.
2Firsts
September 9, 2026
According to federal court records in Delaware and reporting by Bloomberg Law, AJ Marketing LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against JUUL Labs on September 3, 2026, alleging that JUUL 1 and JUUL2 infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,851,068 B2.
The case was filed less than a week after JUUL2 received FDA marketing authorization on August 28, adding an intellectual-property dispute just as JUUL regained a clearer regulatory path for U.S. commercialization.
JUUL2 Had Just Received FDA Marketing Authorization
The FDA on August 28 authorized the marketing of the JUUL2 system, including the JUUL2 device and two 1.6% pods: Virginia Tobacco and Polar Menthol.
The agency said its review found evidence that some adult smokers completely switched to JUUL2 and imposed postmarket and marketing requirements on the products.
FDA data showed that at six weeks, approximately 19.9% to 34.6% of adult smokers using the tobacco-flavored product had completely stopped smoking cigarettes, while the corresponding range for the menthol-flavored product was about 28.4% to 49.3%.
The authorization represented a major U.S. market-access milestone for JUUL.
AJ Marketing Filed Suit Five Days Later
On September 3, AJ Marketing filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
The case is docketed as 1:2026cv01110.
The plaintiff alleges that both JUUL 1 and JUUL2 use technology covered by U.S. Patent No. 8,851,068 B2.
The patent concerns programmable electronic vaporization technology, including electronic controls that meter delivery of a substance and regulate how the device can be used.
Its claims include features allowing users to change operating parameters and limiting either the maximum dose that can be delivered or the number of activations permitted within a defined period.
Patent Predates JUUL2 by More Than a Decade
The ’068 patent traces its priority to 2009, was filed in 2010 and was granted in 2014.
Public patent records identify Scott A. Cohen and Michael J. Bedecs as inventors and AJ Marketing LLC as assignee.
Bloomberg Law, citing the complaint, reported that the underlying work originally involved research into aerosolized delivery of substances such as caffeine and vitamin B12 before being developed into broader programmable vaporization technology.
The patent therefore predates JUUL2 by many years.
Plaintiff Seeks Royalties and Ongoing Compensation
AJ Marketing is asking the court to find JUUL liable for infringement and award at least a reasonable royalty.
Bloomberg Law reported that the plaintiff is also seeking compensation for alleged infringement during the six years preceding the lawsuit, along with ongoing royalties for the remaining life of the patent.
The patent is expected to expire in January 2031.
The case remains at an early stage, and the court has not ruled on the merits of the infringement allegations.
JUUL has not publicly issued a formal response to the lawsuit.
Patent Case Does Not Automatically Affect FDA Authorization
JUUL2’s FDA marketing authorization and AJ Marketing’s civil patent case operate under separate legal frameworks.
FDA authorization through the PMTA process determines whether a tobacco product may be marketed in the United States, while the patent dispute concerns private intellectual-property rights and potential financial remedies.
There is currently no public indication that the lawsuit has caused the FDA to suspend, revoke or modify JUUL2’s marketing authorization.
For JUUL2’s commercialization, the immediate risks relate more to potential licensing costs, damages and future product-design or IP arrangements than to its current regulatory market access.
JUUL Enters a New Commercial Phase
JUUL2’s FDA authorization placed JUUL back into a more defined compliance pathway in the U.S. market.
The patent case shows that regulatory authorization is not the only barrier to commercial rollout.
For mature vaping platforms, commercialization risks also include patent exposure, supply-chain dependencies, channel access and competitive disputes.
JUUL itself has previously used patent litigation and U.S. International Trade Commission proceedings to protect its intellectual property against rivals.
The latest case reverses that position, with JUUL now defending its own products against infringement allegations.
As the U.S. vaping market becomes increasingly concentrated around a smaller number of FDA-authorized platforms, disputes over core device technologies and patent rights may become a more visible commercial factor.
Follow 2Firsts for timely updates on global tobacco and nicotine regulations, market developments and industry trends.
Cover Image: bloomberglaw
