PAX Labs JUUL 337 Wins Lawsuit Against ALD Group Limited NJOY

NJOY has been found guilty of infringement. Vape manufacturer ALD is under investigation, and JUUL is using the patent for “smoke bomb airflow channel” to regain market share.
In January 2025, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) made a final ruling that NJOY ACE products, owned by electronic cigarette brand NJOY, infringed a key patent held by JUUL Labs. This ruling not only resulted in NJOY and its parent company Altria being banned from selling related products in the US market, but also marked a decisive step for JUUL in patent protection.

compare NJOY and Juul vapes

The patent claimed by JUUL is US10709173B2, which focuses on protecting the “smoke bomb sidewall airflow channel” structure. The significance of this case goes far beyond its technical dispute with NJOY and is becoming a signal of a paradigm shift in compliance for the US e-cigarette industry.

JUUL vs NJOY: Review of Litigation Timeline:
On June 30, 2023, JUUL Labs and its subsidiary VMR Products LLC submitted a 337 investigation application to the ITC, accusing NJOY ACE products of infringing on multiple patents, including US10709173B2;
On August 22, 2023, NJOY initiated the Patent Invalidation Procedure (IPR) in an attempt to challenge the validity of JUUL patents;
On December 5, 2024, the ITC administrative judge made a preliminary ruling, determining that NJOY ACE products constituted infringement;
January 29, 2025: ITC issues final ruling and orders injunction;
March 31, 2025: The presidential review period ends and the ban officially takes effect;
In early April 2025, Altria announced the discontinuation of related products.

On February 29, 2024, ITC officially filed a case with case number 337-TA-1392;
July 2024: Partial patent claims investigation terminated, but the subject of the case is still under trial;
As of April 2025: The final ruling has not yet been announced.

The definition of the airflow path structure in this patent is very precise, “explained lawyer Liu Peiling.” Even if it only appears’ conventional ‘, as long as it constitutes the same system combination as described, it may still constitute infringement