This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Patent Infringement

VPR Brands LP v. PHD Marketing Inc.

Published: Jan. 21, 2022 | Result Date: Dec. 30, 2021 | Filing Date: May 4, 2021 |

Case number: 2:21-cv-03797 Settlement –  $85,000

Judge

Andre Birotte Jr.

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jonah A. Grossbardt
(SRip Law)

Matthew L. Rollin
(SRIPLAW)


Defendant

Angelica M. Leon
(Beverly Hills Lawyers & Associates)


Facts

VPR Brands, LP, is a technology company with patents for various technology, including vaporizer products for essential oils, cannabis concentrates and extracts, and electronic nicotine cigarettes. Among these patents is United States Patent Number 8,205,622 (622 Patent) entitled "Electronic Cigarette," which consists of an electronic inhaler and an electronic atomizer. The technology used in the patent allows the device to activate when a user inhales air through the puffing hole, which triggers an airflow sensor that leads to power being supplied to the inhaler and atomizer, emulating the smoking process. PHD Marketing Inc. makes, imports, and sells electronic cigarettes. One of PHD's products is known as BANG. The BANG electronic cigarette functioned in a nearly identical manner as VPR's 622 Patent. VPR filed suit against Bang, seeking to defend its patent.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that Defendant's BANG product used the technology covered in the 622 Patent; that Defendant making, importing, and selling products using that technology infringed upon the 622 Patent; that Defendant's patent infringement threatened the value of Plaintiff's intellectual property; that Defendant's patent infringement threatened Plaintiff's business relationships; and that Defendant's conduct posed a threat of irreparable harm to Plaintiff.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all wrongdoing and all of Plaintiff's allegations regarding any patent infringement.

Result

$85,000 settlement. VPR also granted PHD a nonexclusive, non-assignable license to practice the invention set forth in the Patent.


#138341

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390