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

PMI Expands U.S. ZYN Portfolio With New 1.5 mg and 8 mg Strengths, Moves Toward a Unified 20-Pouch-Per-Can Format
PMI Expands U.S. ZYN Portfolio With New 1.5 mg and 8 mg Strengths, Moves Toward a Unified 20-Pouch-Per-Can Format
Philip Morris International is expanding its U.S. ZYN nicotine pouch portfolio with new 1.5 mg and 8 mg strengths and plans to move its core 3 mg and 6 mg dry-pouch products from 15 to 20 pouches per can in the fourth quarter of 2026. ZYN ULTRA is also commercially available, with FDA authorization covering 10 products at 9 mg and one 11 mg Smooth product. PMI U.S. lists the new 1.5 mg and 8 mg strengths as commercially available, but as of September 10 they do not appear on the FDA’s public authorization list. Public materials do not identify which PMTA submissions cover the two new strengths or their current review status.
Sep.11
2Firsts Compliance Solutions Hosts PMTA Briefing on FDA Review Signals After JUUL2 Authorization
2Firsts Compliance Solutions Hosts PMTA Briefing on FDA Review Signals After JUUL2 Authorization
Following recent FDA authorizations for JUUL2 and ZYN ULTRA, 2Firsts Compliance Solutions held an online PMTA briefing on Sept. 4 to examine what the decisions may signal about review efficiency, scientific evidence and U.S. market access. Nearly 30 participants from brands, manufacturers, compliance service providers and investment firms joined the discussion.
2Firsts Events
Sep.06
China Tobacco Zhejiang files patent for pressure-triggered, on-demand oral nicotine release
China Tobacco Zhejiang files patent for pressure-triggered, on-demand oral nicotine release
China Tobacco Zhejiang Industrial Co., Ltd. has filed a patent application for an oral nicotine delivery product designed to let users actively adjust nicotine release. The product embeds two types of nicotine reservoirs with different wall thicknesses and positions inside a deformable matrix. Pressure applied with the tongue or lips can rupture the reservoirs and accelerate nicotine release. In simulated oral tests, several patent examples showed sharply higher peak nicotine release rates as applied force increased from 0 N to 1 N and 3 N. The filing explores a shift from preset release profiles toward user-triggered nicotine delivery.
Sep.01
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company Launches Flavored Vuse Pro Pods in U.S. Without FDA Marketing Authorization
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company Launches Flavored Vuse Pro Pods in U.S. Without FDA Marketing Authorization
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company has begun selling four flavored Vuse Pro pods — Peach, Berry, Watermelon and Fresh Mint — in Ohio and selected other U.S. markets. According to the Vuse U.S. FAQ, Vuse Pro contains approximately 5.0% nicotine by weight, and Vuse Pro pre-filled pods are intended for use with Vuse Alto devices. Reynolds told 2Firsts that product labeling lists an e-liquid capacity of 2.0 mL per pod. The Vuse Alto Power Unit received FDA marketing authorization in 2024, while the new Vuse Pro pods themselves have not received marketing granted orders. The rollout follows the FDA’s May 2026 revision of enforcement priorities for certain unauthorized vaping products with qualifying pending applications.
BAT
Sep.10
Smoore Seeks to Toss CCELL Price-Fixing Claim as Court Weighs Vertical Distribution Versus Horizontal Conspiracy
Smoore Seeks to Toss CCELL Price-Fixing Claim as Court Weighs Vertical Distribution Versus Horizontal Conspiracy
Smoore and four authorized U.S. CCELL distributors are asking a California federal court to permanently dismiss a core antitrust claim brought by direct purchasers. Plaintiffs allege that Smoore coordinated minimum wholesale prices, customer allocation and limits on price competition among distributors, amounting to a per se unlawful horizontal conspiracy. The defendants say the alleged conduct reflects ordinary vertical relationships between a manufacturer and its distributors. The court previously dismissed a similar claim, and the latest dispute centers on whether the second amended complaint adds sufficient facts to establish a horizontal agreement.
Sep.14
Ohio Supreme Court Weighs Whether State Consumer Law Can Restrict Flavored Vape Sales
Ohio Supreme Court Weighs Whether State Consumer Law Can Restrict Flavored Vape Sales
The Ohio Supreme Court is hearing a case involving flavored vape sales and whether state authorities can use consumer protection laws to take action against retailers selling unauthorized vape products. Ohio officials argue that selling unauthorized flavored vapes may constitute consumer deception, while retailers argue that tobacco product regulation falls under federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority and that states cannot impose additional restrictions through consumer laws. The case could affect the scope of state-level vape regulation across the United States.
Aug.06