Reynolds American Inc v. VPR Brands

Case Overview and Background

In a significant move within the highly competitive electronic cigarette industry, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, a subsidiary of tobacco giant Reynolds American Inc., has filed a lawsuit against VPR Brands, LP. The complaint, filed on April 21, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleges that Reynolds' own VUSE line of e-cigarettes—specifically the VUSE Alto, Ciro, Solo, and Vibe products—infringe on a patent held by VPR Brands. This legal action stands out as it appears to be a preemptive or defensive maneuver by a major market player against a smaller entity known for actively monetizing its intellectual property.

The plaintiff, Reynolds American, is the second-largest tobacco company in the United States and a subsidiary of British American Tobacco (BAT). It is a major operating company in the e-cigarette market with its popular VUSE brand. The defendant, VPR Brands, is a technology and IP holding company that designs, markets, and distributes its own vaporizer products while also engaging in the aggressive enforcement and licensing of its patent portfolio. The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,205,622, generally covers an electronic cigarette that utilizes an electric airflow sensor to activate the device automatically upon inhalation—a common feature known as "auto-draw" technology.

The case (1:26-cv-00459) is in its earliest stages, with no judge yet assigned. The choice of the District of Delaware is strategic, as it is a premier and highly experienced venue for patent litigation due to the large number of U.S. corporations incorporated there. This case is notable because it pits a major tobacco corporation against a smaller, publicly-traded company that has built a business strategy around enforcing the '622 patent. VPR Brands has a documented history of suing numerous companies over the '622 patent, resulting in a series of settlements and licensing deals. Furthermore, the patent's validity was upheld in a 2022 Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), strengthening VPR's position. This lawsuit escalates VPR's enforcement campaign to one of the largest players in the vaping market, making it a key case to watch within the broader, ongoing "patent wars" that characterize the rapidly evolving e-cigarette industry.

As of May 2, 2026, the patent infringement litigation between Reynolds American Inc. and VPR Brands is in its nascent stages, with only initial filings and strategically significant legal-team changes having occurred. The case timeline is dominated by the pre-litigation history of the patent-in-suit.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings (Pre-Litigation)

VPR Brands' U.S. Patent No. 8,205,622 ("the '622 patent") has been significantly strengthened by its survival of two separate validity challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). These proceedings form a critical backdrop to the district court case.

• 2022-07-12: PTAB Upholds Patent in First IPR Challenge. The PTAB denied a petition for inter partes review (IPR) filed by Jupiter Research, LLC (Case No. IPR2022-00299). The board found that Jupiter failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims of the '622 patent were unpatentable. This non-appealable decision validated the patent and cleared the way for VPR's ongoing enforcement campaign.
• 2024-01-27: PTAB Upholds Patent in Second IPR Challenge. In a further victory for VPR Brands, the PTAB again upheld the validity of the '622 patent by denying institution of a second IPR petition, this one filed by iMiracle. This second successful defense further solidified the patent's presumption of validity ahead of any new litigation.

Key Legal Developments in the District Court Case

The district court action was initiated by Reynolds in what appears to be a preemptive move to seek legal clarity after threats from VPR Brands.

• 2026-04-21: Complaint Filed for Declaratory Judgment. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, a subsidiary of Reynolds American, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (1:26-cv-00459). The suit asks the court to declare that Reynolds' VUSE® Alto, Ciro, Solo, and Vibe products do not infringe VPR Brands' '622 patent. The filing states it was a response to VPR having "explicitly threatened litigation" against Reynolds.
• 2026-04-22: VPR Brands Announces New Lead Patent Counsel. In a move signaling its serious intent to enforce the '622 patent, VPR Brands announced that it had retained the prominent intellectual property firm McAndrews, Held & Malloy. The firm was engaged to lead a comprehensive "commercialization, licensing, and enforcement strategy" for the patent, including potential litigation in district courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). This announcement, coming the day after Reynolds filed its suit, underscores the high stakes of the dispute.

Present Posture and Outlook

The case is currently in its earliest possible stage. As of early May 2026, VPR Brands' answer to the complaint is not yet due, and no judge has been assigned to the case.

Given the timeline, there have been no substantive motions, claim construction hearings, or discovery. The next steps will involve VPR Brands filing its answer to the complaint, which will likely include counterclaims for patent infringement against Reynolds. Following that, the parties will proceed with scheduling, discovery, and motions practice. Reynolds may also consider filing its own IPR petition at the PTAB to challenge the '622 patent's validity, despite the two prior failed attempts by other parties.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

As of May 2, 2026, counsel for the plaintiff, Reynolds American Inc. (specifically its subsidiary, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company), has formally appeared on the docket. The legal team is comprised of attorneys from the international law firm Jones Day.

• David M. Maiorana (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Jones Day (Cleveland)
  • Relevant Experience: Maiorana is an experienced patent trial lawyer who has represented major technology and consumer product companies, including leading litigation for Reynolds in other patent disputes.

• T. "Ted" M. Stevenson (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Jones Day (Dallas)
  • Relevant Experience: Stevenson has a significant track record in high-stakes patent and intellectual property litigation, having represented clients like Texas Instruments in major technology disputes.

• John A. Marlott (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Jones Day (Chicago)
  • Relevant Experience: Marlott has extensive experience in patent litigation and PTAB proceedings, particularly within the electronics and software sectors.

• David B. Tulchin (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Jones Day (New York)
  • Relevant Experience: Tulchin is a veteran trial lawyer with a history of representing major corporations, including R.J. Reynolds, in significant commercial and intellectual property litigation.

• Elizabeth M. Slover (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Jones Day (Washington, D.C. - admitted in Delaware)
  • Relevant Experience: Slover focuses on intellectual property litigation in the District of Delaware and has represented clients in various patent disputes in that jurisdiction.

Note: While Reynolds American Inc. has an in-house legal department, specific in-house counsel have not yet filed a formal appearance on the public docket for this case (1:26-cv-00459, D.I. 1).

Counsel for Defendant VPR Brands

As of May 2, 2026, attorneys for the defendant, VPR Brands, LP, have not yet filed a formal notice of appearance on the docket for Reynolds American Inc v. VPR Brands, Case No. 1:26-cv-00459 in the District of Delaware.

However, in a press release issued on April 22, 2026—the day after Reynolds filed its lawsuit—VPR Brands announced it had retained the prominent intellectual property firm McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. to lead its comprehensive patent commercialization and enforcement strategy for the patent-in-suit. This engagement covers all aspects of licensing and potential litigation, including proceedings in district court and before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).

Based on this announcement, the anticipated legal team for VPR Brands includes:

• Matthew McAndrews (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. (Chicago)
  • Relevant Experience: A senior partner at the firm, McAndrews has extensive experience in IP litigation and licensing, has litigated numerous jury and bench trials, and has a significant appellate practice before the Federal Circuit.

While the full team has not formally appeared, the McAndrews firm is a well-established IP boutique with over 90 attorneys, the majority of whom are registered patent attorneys with technical degrees. The firm has an active practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and in federal courts nationwide. Given the venue, it is expected that a Delaware-admitted attorney will also be retained as local counsel, but their identity is not yet public.