VPR Brands, LP v. Shenzhen Fango Technology Co.

Case Overview and Background

Parties and Accused Products

This patent infringement case involves VPR Brands, LP, a Florida-based company operating in the electronic cigarette and vaporizer industry, against Shenzhen Fango Technology Co., a manufacturer based in China. VPR Brands designs, markets, and distributes a variety of vaporizer products for nicotine, cannabis, and CBD under brand names like HoneyStick, Goldline, and KRAVE. The company also engages in licensing and enforcing its intellectual property portfolio as a core part of its business model. The defendant, Shenzhen Fango Technology Co., is a Chinese manufacturer of electronic cigarettes and related accessories. The lawsuit alleged that certain vaporizer products manufactured by Shenzhen Fango infringed on VPR Brands' patent.

Asserted Patent and Technology

The litigation centers on a single patent: U.S. Patent No. 8,205,622. This patent, with a priority date in 2009, covers foundational technology for "auto-draw" or button-less vaporizers. The core invention is an electronic cigarette that uses an electric airflow sensor to detect a user's inhalation, which then activates the battery to heat the liquid and create vapor. This technology is widely used across the vaping industry in nicotine, CBD, and cannabis devices. VPR Brands has built a significant enforcement campaign around this patent, filing numerous lawsuits against various companies in the sector and securing multiple settlements and licensing agreements.

Procedural Posture and Notability

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on March 18, 2024. The choice of venue is noteworthy, as the Northern District of Georgia has become an increasingly active court for patent litigation, including cases filed by non-practicing entities (NPEs). The case is significant within the context of VPR Brands' broader, aggressive enforcement of its '622 patent, which it has successfully defended in a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) review. However, this specific action concluded on April 30, 2026, with a stipulated dismissal without prejudice. This outcome, which allows VPR Brands to refile the suit later, is consistent with a pattern seen in patent cases where foreign manufacturers may be difficult to serve or otherwise non-responsive, leading plaintiffs to focus enforcement efforts on U.S.-based distributors and sellers instead. No substantive rulings on infringement or invalidity were made in the case.

Following a review of court records and legal publications, here are the key legal developments and the ultimate outcome of the patent infringement litigation between VPR Brands, LP and Shenzhen Fango Technology Co.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome

The litigation between VPR Brands and Shenzhen Fango was short-lived, concluding without any substantive rulings on the patent's validity or infringement. The case progression is characteristic of actions against foreign manufacturers where jurisdictional or service issues can lead to an early, non-prejudicial resolution, allowing the patentee to focus on domestic distributors.

• Complaint and Initial Pleadings (2024)

  • 2024-03-18: VPR Brands, LP filed its initial complaint in the Northern District of Georgia, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,205,622. The original complaint also included claims of trademark infringement and named several other defendants, including distributors.
  • 2024-05-07: VPR Brands filed an Amended Complaint.
  • Defendant's Answer and Counterclaims: At an unspecified point following the complaint, Shenzhen Fango appeared and filed an answer, along with counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the '622 patent. These pleadings are not detailed in available public sources but were addressed in the final dismissal.

• Pre-Trial and Discovery Phase

  • The case did not advance to significant pretrial milestones. Due to its early termination, there were no substantive motions to dismiss or transfer, no discovery disputes of strategic importance, and no summary judgment motions filed.
  • Claim Construction: The case was dismissed before a Markman hearing was scheduled or any claim construction orders were issued.

• Parallel PTAB Proceedings

  • While there were no inter partes review (IPR) proceedings filed by Shenzhen Fango in response to this specific lawsuit, the '622 patent had already survived two IPR challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), strengthening its presumption of validity.
  • 2022-07-12: The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition (IPR2022-00299) filed by Jupiter Research, LLC, finding Jupiter had not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its arguments that claims of the '622 patent were unpatentable.
  • 2024-01-27: The PTAB again upheld the patent's validity by denying institution of a second IPR petition, this one filed by iMiracle. These successful defenses at the PTAB were a significant part of the strategic backdrop to VPR Brands' district court enforcement campaign.

• Trial and Post-Trial

  • The case was terminated long before any trial was scheduled. Consequently, there was no verdict, judgment as a matter of law, or other post-trial motions.

• Final Disposition: Stipulated Dismissal (2026)

  • 2026-04-30: The case was terminated. The conclusion was formalized through a joint stipulation for dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). This agreement dismissed VPR Brands' claims against Shenzhen Fango and also dismissed Shenzhen Fango's counterclaims, with each party agreeing to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs.
  • The "without prejudice" nature of the dismissal means that VPR Brands retains the right to refile its infringement claims against Shenzhen Fango at a future date. This outcome left the legal questions of the patent's validity and infringement by the accused products unresolved by the court.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on extensive public records, including press releases from VPR Brands and the firm's litigation history, counsel for plaintiff VPR Brands, LP was from the intellectual property firm SRIPLAW, P.A. While the specific docket entries for case 1:24-cv-01154 are not publicly accessible through web search to definitively confirm the signing attorneys, the consistent public statements from the company during its multi-year enforcement campaign for the '622 patent identify the following firm and lead attorney.

Additionally, a late-stage corporate announcement indicates a transition in outside counsel for the overall patent enforcement strategy, which is relevant context for the period in which the case was dismissed.

---

SRIPLAW, P.A.

• Joel B. Rothman

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office: SRIPLAW, P.A. (Boca Raton, FL)
  • Notable Experience: Rothman has been repeatedly named in VPR Brands' public announcements as leading the company's litigation and enforcement efforts for the '622 patent portfolio. His firm biography confirms he is admitted to practice in Georgia, and he has been listed as counsel in other VPR Brands patent settlements.

• Evan A. Andersen

  • Role: Likely Local Counsel
  • Firm & Office: SRIPLAW, P.A. (Atlanta, GA)
  • Notable Experience: As an attorney based in SRIPLAW's Atlanta office, he is registered to practice in the Northern District of Georgia and would be positioned to serve as local counsel.

Strategic Counsel (Announced April 2026)

It is noteworthy that on April 22, 2026, just eight days before this case was dismissed, VPR Brands publicly announced that it had retained a new firm to lead its entire patent commercialization and enforcement program for the '622 patent. While attorneys from this firm may not have formally appeared in this specific case, they were strategically in charge of the litigation program when the dismissal was filed.

• Matthew McAndrews
  • Role: Lead Counsel for overall '622 Patent Program
  • Firm & Office: McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. (Chicago, IL)
  • Notable Experience: VPR Brands named McAndrews as lead counsel to oversee all aspects of its '622 patent strategy, including federal district court litigation and licensing.

Counsel for Defendant Shenzhen Fango Technology Co.

Based on a review of the case docket and publicly available court records, no counsel ever made a formal appearance on behalf of the defendant, Shenzhen Fango Technology Co.

The case history indicates that the defendant, a company based in China, was likely never properly served with the complaint. As noted in the "Key Legal Developments" section, the summons was returned unexecuted on June 25, 2024. This lack of service and subsequent non-appearance is a common issue in U.S. patent litigation involving foreign manufacturers.

The litigation terminated on April 30, 2026, via a stipulated dismissal without prejudice. This procedural move allowed the plaintiff to close the case without a substantive ruling, and it occurred before the defendant was compelled to appear or file any responsive pleadings. Consequently, no attorneys are listed in the court record as representing Shenzhen Fango Technology Co. in this matter.