USITC Upholds Preliminary Ruling in Reynolds Tobacco Case

Dec.20.2024
USITC Upholds Preliminary Ruling in Reynolds Tobacco Case
USITC upholds administrative judge ruling denying temporary relief for disposable e-cigarette patent infringement case.

On December 18, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) announced that it had decided not to modify, rescind, or overturn the decision of the presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concerning the preliminary determination denying RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and its affiliated companies' request for temporary relief (known as "ID," or Order No. 28). This decision means that the temporary exclusion order and cease and desist order sought by RAI regarding the import and sale of certain disposable e-cigarette devices and their components were not approved.


The investigation was filed by the British-American tobacco subsidiary Reynolds Tobacco on July 22, 2024, alleging that the importation and sale of certain disposable e-cigarette devices and components by 35 companies violated its US Patent No. 11,925,202. The companies under investigation include several from China, Hong Kong, and the United States.


Reynolds Tobacco has filed a complaint and simultaneously applied for a temporary restraining order and injunction in an attempt to prevent these products from entering or continuing to be sold in the US market during the investigation.


The U.S. International Trade Commission has accepted the case and assigned an administrative law judge to conduct the investigation. However, due to the complexity of the case, the commission deemed the interim relief program as a "complicated" matter on July 29, 2024. Some defendant companies such as Kimsun and Bidi Vapor have ended the investigation by reaching a consent decree, but several defendants have not appeared in response to the lawsuit.


On November 19, 2024, an administrative judge issued a temporary restraining order ("TEO"), denying Reynolds Tobacco's request for temporary relief. The ruling stated:


The claims of patent infringement lack a likelihood of success.


There is a significant dispute over the validity of the patent.


The plaintiff failed to prove that not seeking redress would result in irreparable harm.


Renault subsequently submitted a comment document, but stated that they will not seek a reconsideration of the ruling by the commission.


We welcome news tips, article submissions, interview requests, or comments on this piece.

Please contact us at info@2firsts.com, or reach out to Alan Zhao, CEO of 2Firsts, on LinkedIn


Notice

1.  This article is intended solely for professional research purposes related to industry, technology, and policy. Any references to brands or products are made purely for objective description and do not constitute any form of endorsement, recommendation, or promotion by 2Firsts.

2.  The use of nicotine-containing products — including, but not limited to, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, nicotine pouchand heated tobacco products — carries significant health risks. Users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions.

3.  This article is not intended to serve as the basis for any investment decisions or financial advice. 2Firsts assumes no direct or indirect liability for any inaccuracies or errors in the content.

4.  Access to this article is strictly prohibited for individuals below the legal age in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright

 

This article is either an original work created by 2Firsts or a reproduction from third-party sources with proper attribution. All copyrights and usage rights belong to 2Firsts or the original content provider. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or any other form of unauthorized use by any individual or organization is strictly prohibited. Violators will be held legally accountable.

For copyright-related inquiries, please contact: info@2firsts.com

 

AI Assistance Disclaimer

 

This article may have been enhanced using AI tools to improve translation and editorial efficiency. However, due to technical limitations, inaccuracies may occur. Readers are encouraged to refer to the cited sources for the most accurate information.

We welcome any corrections or feedback. Please contact us at: info@2firsts.com

Reynolds Showcases Vuse Pro Flavors and VELO Nicotine Pouches at NACS Show 2026
Reynolds Showcases Vuse Pro Flavors and VELO Nicotine Pouches at NACS Show 2026
Reynolds American, a BAT subsidiary, showcased four Vuse Pro flavored e-cigarette pods and its VELO nicotine pouch portfolio at NACS Show 2026. Booth staff confirmed to 2Firsts that the Vuse Pro flavors are sold in the U.S., although they have not received FDA marketing authorization. BAT outlined plans to expand Vuse retail distribution and reported that VELO held a 30.5% year-to-date volume share of the U.S. modern oral nicotine category through August 2026. The booth also featured the newly launched VELO MAX range and merchandising displays combining cigarettes, vaping products and oral nicotine brands.
EXPO
Oct.09
JUUL Purchasers Ask Ninth Circuit to Preserve Antitrust Classes in Case Over Altria’s $12.8 Billion Investment
JUUL Purchasers Ask Ninth Circuit to Preserve Antitrust Classes in Case Over Altria’s $12.8 Billion Investment
Private antitrust litigation stemming from Altria's 2018 $12.8 billion investment for a 35% economic interest in JUUL is advancing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Direct purchasers, indirect purchasers and indirect resellers of JUUL products filed answering briefs this week seeking to preserve class certifications granted by a California federal court in February. Altria and JUUL argue that individual consumers and large distributors differ too much in purchasing terms to remain in a single direct-purchaser class, while a separate dispute concerns whether California antitrust law can apply to indirect purchasers across 27 jurisdictions. A September trial has been put on hold during the appeal.
Sep.23
Product | PIXL Adds 6ml PIXL 5K in UK Alongside 12ml PIXL 8000 as Vape Duty Takes Effect
Product | PIXL Adds 6ml PIXL 5K in UK Alongside 12ml PIXL 8000 as Vape Duty Takes Effect
Vaping brand PIXL has introduced the PIXL 5K reusable prefilled pod device in the UK, featuring a 2ml prefilled pod and a 4ml refill container with a combined e-liquid capacity of 6ml. The device uses 20mg/ml nicotine salt e-liquid and is advertised to deliver up to approximately 5,000 puffs. Available through UK retailers by August 2026, the PIXL 5K sits alongside the existing 12ml PIXL 8000. The UK's Vaping Products Duty took effect on October 1 at £0.22 per millilitre, producing theoretical duty amounts of £1.32 and £2.64 for the two products' respective full refill sets.
product
Oct.10
Russia’s Vape Device Labeling Regime Enters Force: Registration Starts in September, Mandatory Coding in December
Russia’s Vape Device Labeling Regime Enters Force: Registration Starts in September, Mandatory Coding in December
Russia's digital labeling regime for reusable e-cigarettes and similar personal vaping devices entered its first mandatory phase in September 2026. From September 1, manufacturers, importers and other market participants must register with the national Chestny ZNAK tracking system. From December 1, newly manufactured and imported covered devices will be required to carry digital identification codes and be reported as entering circulation. Russia has also issued new operational guidance for imports, marking the transition from a voluntary pilot to phased mandatory implementation.
Sep.15
U.S. Ninth Circuit Upholds FDA Denial of MH Global’s Flavored Vape PMTA Applications
U.S. Ninth Circuit Upholds FDA Denial of MH Global’s Flavored Vape PMTA Applications
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the FDA’s denial of MH Global LLC’s applications to market flavored electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). The court ruled that FDA’s comparative-efficacy framework, which requires applicants to show that flavored products provide greater cessation or switching benefits than tobacco-flavored alternatives, is consistent with the Tobacco Control Act’s “appropriate for the protection of the public health” standard. The court also found that FDA was not required to establish the framework through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Aug.26
Virginia Tobacco Retail Permit Takes Effect October 1, Covering Vapes as More Than 3,000 Businesses Apply in September
Virginia Tobacco Retail Permit Takes Effect October 1, Covering Vapes as More Than 3,000 Businesses Apply in September
Virginia's new retail tobacco permit system took effect October 1, requiring sellers of vapes, nicotine products and related devices and accessories to obtain a Retail Tobacco Permit for each business location. Virginia ABC said more than 3,000 businesses applied in September alone, creating a processing backlog. Qualifying applicants that filed before October 1 may temporarily operate under a Letter of Authorization. The new store-level permit also sits alongside Virginia's existing vape product directory, where sales of unlisted liquid nicotine or nicotine vapor products can trigger civil penalties starting at $5,000.
Regulations
Oct.03