VPR Brands, LP v. POP Vapor

VPR Brands Leverages Key E-Cigarette Patent in Litigation Campaign

Case Overview

This patent infringement case was part of a broader, aggressive enforcement campaign by VPR Brands, LP, an operating company and intellectual property holder in the electronic cigarette industry. VPR Brands, which markets its own lines of vaporizers and e-cigarettes, sued numerous competitors in the vaping market for infringing its early-filed patent on "auto-draw" technology. The defendant, POP Vapor, is a California-founded operating company known for its disposable vape devices and a variety of e-liquid flavors, which it markets under brand names like "POP HIT". The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleged that POP Vapor's button-less vaping products infringed VPR's foundational patent. The choice of venue is notable as POP Vapor maintains a corporate address in Atlanta, Georgia, within the Northern District.

Asserted Patent and Technology

The litigation centered on a single patent: U.S. Patent No. 8,205,622, titled "Electronic cigarette." This patent, with a priority date in 2009, covers the core technology for "auto-draw" or button-less e-cigarettes, where an electric airflow sensor activates the heating element upon inhalation. Specifically, the patent claims an electronic cigarette that uses a sensor, such as a diaphragm microphone, to detect the user's puff and turn the battery on and off. VPR Brands has alleged that the vast majority of modern disposable vapes and similar devices utilize this technology, making the '622 patent highly relevant to the multi-billion dollar vaping industry. The accused products in this case were POP Vapor's "auto-draw vaping products" sold under the POP HIT brand.

Notability and Industry Impact

The case is significant as a key data point in VPR Brands' widespread and successful monetization campaign surrounding the '622 patent. Represented by the law firm SRIPLAW, P.A., VPR has filed suits against dozens of companies, securing numerous settlements and license agreements. The patent's strength has been twice confirmed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which denied petitions for inter partes review (IPR) filed by other defendants, Jupiter Research and iMiracle, respectively. These rulings upheld the validity of the patent claims and cleared the way for VPR's continued district court litigation. The settlement with POP Vapor, which included a $30,000 payment and a $0.05 per-unit royalty until the patent's expiration in 2030, reinforces the patent's value and VPR's strategy of enforcing its IP against a broad swath of the vaping market.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement litigation between VPR Brands, LP and POP Vapor in the Northern District of Georgia was a relatively swift proceeding, culminating in a settlement that provided VPR Brands with a lump-sum payment and ongoing royalties. The case was part of a broader, aggressive enforcement campaign by VPR Brands to license its U.S. Patent No. 8,205,622, which covers "auto-draw" technology in vaping devices.

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2024)

While specific filing dates for the complaint and answer are not available in public sources, the lawsuit was initiated by VPR Brands in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in 2024. The complaint alleged that POP Vapor's "POP HIT" brand of auto-draw electronic cigarette products infringed upon the '622 patent. VPR Brands was represented by the law firm SRIPLAW, P.A., which has handled numerous similar enforcement actions for the company.

Pre-Trial and Discovery

The case did not appear to have any substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, filed on the public docket. The matter was resolved before reaching significant litigation milestones like a Markman hearing for claim construction or the completion of fact and expert discovery. The rapid settlement suggests that the parties likely entered into negotiations early in the litigation process.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

While POP Vapor does not appear to have challenged the patent's validity, VPR Brands has successfully defended the '622 patent in at least two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• IPR2022-00299: A petition filed by Jupiter Research, LLC was denied by the PTAB on July 12, 2022. The Board found that Jupiter Research failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims were unpatentable.
• iMiracle IPR: In a decision rendered around January 27, 2024, the PTAB again upheld the validity of the '622 patent against a challenge filed by iMiracle.

These successful defenses at the PTAB likely strengthened VPR Brands' position in its litigation against POP Vapor and other alleged infringers, confirming the patent's validity and reducing the defendant's leverage in settlement negotiations.

Settlement and Dismissal (2025-02-27)

The litigation terminated on February 27, 2025, when the parties reached a settlement. Under the terms of the agreement, POP Vapor agreed to:

1. Settlement Payment: A one-time payment of $30,000 to VPR Brands.
2. Ongoing Royalties: A royalty of $0.05 per unit for all "POP HIT" devices sold, effective from April 1, 2024, until the '622 patent expires in July 2030.
3. Non-Exclusive License: In return, VPR Brands granted POP Vapor a non-exclusive, non-assignable, perpetual license to the '622 patent and its related patents, allowing POP Vapor to continue manufacturing and selling its auto-draw vaping products.

Following the agreement, the case was dismissed. This outcome is consistent with VPR Brands' established strategy of enforcing its patent portfolio to generate licensing revenue, having secured similar settlements from other companies in the vaping industry.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record Identified in VPR Brands Patent Suit

VPR Brands, LP, the plaintiff in the patent infringement lawsuit against POP Vapor, was represented by the intellectual property law firm SRIPLAW, P.A. Publicly available documents and the firm's website indicate that a team led by the firm's managing partner was supported by local counsel in Georgia.

Based on an extensive review of press releases, regulatory filings, and the law firm's public information, the following attorneys were identified as representing VPR Brands:

• Joel B. Rothman (Lead Counsel): Rothman is the Managing Partner of SRIPLAW, P.A., operating out of the firm's office in Boca Raton, Florida. He is Board Certified in Intellectual Property Law by The Florida Bar and is also admitted to practice in Georgia. Numerous press releases from VPR Brands concerning its patent enforcement strategy, including the announcement of the settlement with POP Vapor, identify Rothman as the head of the company's legal team. He has represented VPR Brands in multiple patent infringement cases across the country.

• Evan A. Andersen (Local Counsel): Andersen is a Partner in SRIPLAW's Atlanta, Georgia office. Given the case was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, Andersen's role would have been to serve as local counsel, handling matters specific to the jurisdiction. His presence in the Atlanta office and the firm's established relationship with VPR Brands point to his involvement.

SRIPLAW, formerly known as Schneider Rothman Intellectual Property Law Group, has a documented history of leading VPR Brands' nationwide efforts to enforce U.S. Patent No. 8,205,622. The firm has been at the forefront of numerous similar lawsuits filed by VPR Brands against other companies in the vaping industry. The successful settlement with POP Vapor is one of several favorable outcomes VPR Brands has achieved with SRIPLAW's representation.

While specific filings from the Northern District of Georgia docket for case number 1:21-cv-04787-TCB were not publicly available through web searches, consistent statements from the plaintiff, VPR Brands, and the structure of the SRIPLAW firm provide a clear indication of the legal team responsible for the litigation.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

After a thorough review of public records, including press releases and news articles related to the litigation between VPR Brands and POP Vapor, no information identifying the specific attorneys or law firm that represented the defendant, POP Vapor, has been made public.

The case settled on February 27, 2025, likely in the very early stages of litigation. Public announcements of the settlement were issued by the plaintiff, VPR Brands, and focused on the terms of the agreement and VPR's own legal team at SRIPLAW, P.A. These announcements did not name counsel for POP Vapor.

Given that the case was filed in the Northern District of Georgia and terminated quickly, it is probable that POP Vapor retained counsel who negotiated a settlement before filing a notice of appearance on the public docket. Without a publicly accessible docket number or filings such as an Answer or a motion to dismiss, the identity of POP Vapor's counsel remains unavailable in the public record. Searches for other litigation involving POP Vapor identified counsel in a regulatory case against the FDA, but there is no indication the same firms were involved in this patent matter.