Patent wars, long associated with the technology and software sectors, refer to legal battles between companies seeking to protect, challenge, or leverage intellectual property rights. The tobacco industry’s rapid transition toward reduced-risk products has triggered a similar wave of patent disputes in recent years, particularly since 2018, with no clear winner emerging so far.
Critics argue that “only lawyers win in patent wars,” suggesting companies would be better off directing capital toward research and development rather than litigation. Yet as competition intensifies across vaping, heated tobacco, and nicotine pouch technologies, intellectual property has become an increasingly important strategic weapon. Here is a chronology of the latest developments:
September 2026: Altria Loses Constitutional Challenge to ITC as JUUL Patent Battle Over NJOY Continues
Altria Group and its NJOY subsidiary have suffered a legal setback after a federal court rejected their constitutional challenge to the U.S. International Trade Commission’s authority to adjudicate a patent dispute brought by JUUL Labs over NJOY vaping products. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the ITC on September 3, rejecting Altria’s attempt to halt the commission’s investigation into allegations that NJOY products infringe a JUUL patent. The ruling also denied Altria’s request for a permanent injunction blocking the ITC proceeding.
The constitutional lawsuit was filed in November 2025 by Altria, NJOY and several affiliated companies after JUUL initiated parallel patent actions in federal court and before the ITC in August 2025. JUUL accused NJOY of infringing a patent through the sale of its NJOY Daily vaping products and sought an exclusion order that could block the importation of the products into the United States. Unlike federal patent litigation, the ITC cannot award monetary damages but can issue orders preventing infringing products from entering the U.S. market.
Altria’s lawsuit challenged the ITC proceeding on several constitutional grounds. The companies argued that they were entitled to have JUUL’s patent claims heard by an Article III federal court and decided by a jury, rather than by an administrative agency. They also argued that the ITC administrative law judge overseeing the investigation had been unconstitutionally appointed and was improperly protected from removal by the president. The challenge represented an attempt to attack the forum itself rather than relying exclusively on conventional patent defenses. A successful ruling could potentially have prevented the ITC from continuing to adjudicate JUUL’s claims against NJOY and raised broader questions about the commission’s role in resolving patent disputes between private companies.
Altria had already failed in an earlier attempt to immediately halt the ITC investigation. The federal court denied the companies’ motion for a preliminary injunction in June, prompting Altria to appeal that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The September ruling represents a more substantive defeat, with the court now granting summary judgment in favor of the ITC on the constitutional challenge.
The constitutional loss does not, however, mean that JUUL has won the underlying patent dispute. In April, the ITC administrative law judge granted NJOY’s motion for summary determination and found the sole patent asserted by JUUL to be invalid. The ruling consequently found no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act, which governs the ITC’s authority to restrict unfair imports. JUUL subsequently petitioned the full ITC to review the decision, and the commission agreed to undertake that review in May. The commission can affirm the administrative judge’s finding, reverse it or remand the investigation for further proceedings, and has not yet issued a final determination.
The dispute is part of a wider and increasingly complex patent battle between Altria/NJOY and JUUL. NJOY previously brought its own ITC patent case against JUUL, but the commission ultimately found that JUUL’s products did not infringe the asserted NJOY patents and terminated the investigation. NJOY has separately pursued patent litigation against JUUL in federal court.
For Altria, the immediate significance of the latest ruling is therefore mixed. The company has lost its attempt to challenge the constitutional basis of the ITC proceeding and to prevent the commission from hearing JUUL’s claims. However, NJOY currently retains an important substantive victory in the underlying investigation after the administrative judge found JUUL’s sole asserted patent invalid. The ultimate commercial outcome will now depend on the ITC’s review of that patent decision. If the commission upholds the invalidity finding, JUUL’s effort to secure an import ban against NJOY Daily and related products will fail. If it reverses the decision, the patent dispute could return to the ITC for further proceedings and potentially expose NJOY’s vaping business to an exclusion order.
The case nevertheless marks a significant legal defeat for Altria’s broader strategy. By rejecting the constitutional challenge, the federal court has preserved the ITC as a forum for resolving JUUL’s patent claims against NJOY, leaving the fate of the dispute to be determined primarily on patent law rather than through Altria’s attempt to challenge the commission’s underlying authority.
September 2026: JUUL Sued Over Vaporizer Patent Days After Securing FDA Approval for JUUL2
Just days after securing marketing authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its next-generation JUUL2 system, JUUL Labs has been hit with a new patent infringement lawsuit targeting both its original device and the newly approved platform. Maine-based AJ Marketing LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that JUUL products infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,851,068. Granted in October 2014 from a 2010 application, the broad foundational patent covers battery-powered personal inhalation devices featuring metered delivery controls.
The lawsuit centers on U.S. Patent No. 8,851,068, titled “Personal inhalation devices,” which covers controlled-dose vapor delivery for various substances, explicitly including caffeine and nicotine. AJ Marketing contends that JUUL’s core device architecture and dose-metering electronics directly infringe these claims. Because the complaint seeks compensation for the six-year statutory lookback period, potential damages reach back to September 2020, alongside a demand for ongoing royalties through the patent’s expected expiration in January 2031.
While the FDA’s August 28, 2026 authorization confirmed that JUUL2 meets statutory public health standards for domestic marketing, regulatory approval operates independently of patent law and offers no immunity against third-party intellectual property claims. Consequently, JUUL Labs – which has spent years aggressively enforcing its own patent portfolio against competitors like Altria and NJOY – now finds itself on the receiving end of a broad infringement claim rooted in early vaporizer technology.
Because the complaint demands compensation for sales dating back to 2020, legacy JUUL device sales represent the primary historical financial exposure. However, the demand for an ongoing royalty directly ties the economic outlook of the newly authorized JUUL2 platform to the remaining four years of the patent’s life.
September 2026: Federal Judge Rules JUUL Sublicense Ends Future Royalty Obligations for BAT Subsidiary R.J. Reynolds
In a pivotal development in a long-running e-cigarette patent dispute, a federal court has ruled that R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., a subsidiary of British American Tobacco (BAT), is no longer required to pay ongoing royalties to rival Altria Client Services LLC after securing a sublicense to Altria’s patented technology through JUUL Labs Inc. A U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina ruled that a December 2023 intellectual property sublicense between JUUL and R.J. Reynolds effectively terminates Reynolds’ court-ordered obligation to pay a 5.25% running royalty on qualifying future net sales of the infringing pod-style vaping devices.
The dispute centers on Altria Client Services LLC et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (No. 1:20-cv-00472), which began in 2020 when Altria accused the BAT subsidiary of infringing patents covering pod-style e-cigarette and vape pen designs. In September 2022, a federal jury found Reynolds liable for patent infringement and awarded Altria $95 million in damages for past infringement. In January 2023, the court imposed an additional 5.25% royalty on qualifying future net sales of the infringing products. With the patents not scheduled to expire until 2035, the ruling potentially created a royalty stream extending for more than a decade and funded directly by BAT’s U.S. vaping business. Reynolds appealed the original judgment, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the ruling in December 2024, and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Reynolds’ petition for certiorari in October 2025.
While the original litigation was proceeding, Reynolds pursued an alternative route to eliminate the continuing royalty obligation. In December 2023, it entered into a separate intellectual property agreement with JUUL. Under a 2018 agreement between Altria and JUUL, entered into before the two companies’ subsequent falling-out, JUUL had received a broad license to Altria’s e-vapor intellectual property, including rights to sublicense certain patents. Reynolds argued that its new agreement with JUUL therefore provided it with a valid sublicense covering the Altria patents at issue in the litigation.
Reynolds subsequently asked the district court to vacate its continuing royalty obligation, arguing that the JUUL sublicense authorized its use of the patented technology both prospectively and, under the agreement’s terms, retrospectively. Altria opposed the move, arguing that Reynolds could not use an agreement executed after the infringement judgment to circumvent its court-ordered royalty obligations.
In December 2024, the court distinguished between liabilities that had already accrued and future royalties. It rejected Reynolds’ attempt to eliminate the $95 million infringement judgment and royalties that had accrued before the December 2023 sublicense. However, it left unresolved whether the sublicense relieved Reynolds of its obligation to make royalty payments on qualifying sales after the agreement took effect.
The court subsequently held an evidentiary hearing in April 2026 to determine the effect of the JUUL sublicense on the continuing royalty obligation. Altria referenced the proceeding in its July 2026 quarterly filing. The court’s August 31, 2026 decision resolves that remaining issue in Reynolds’ favor: the JUUL sublicense validly eliminates Reynolds’ obligation to pay the 5.25% running royalty on qualifying future sales for the remaining term of the patents.
The ruling creates an unusual strategic consequence of Altria’s former relationship with JUUL. Altria returned its equity stake in JUUL to the company in March 2023, after which the two companies became involved in separate legal disputes, including litigation involving Altria’s NJOY business. Yet the licensing rights Altria had granted JUUL years earlier ultimately enabled JUUL to sublicense the relevant intellectual property to Reynolds, allowing one of Altria’s principal U.S. e-vapor competitors to avoid a potentially decade-long royalty obligation to Altria.
The financial terms of the Reynolds-JUUL transaction remain undisclosed. In February 2025, the court granted requests by Altria and Reynolds to keep commercially sensitive provisions of their respective licensing agreements under seal. Court records indicate that Reynolds made a lump-sum payment to JUUL for the sublicense, but the amount remains redacted. The transaction therefore appears to have replaced an undisclosed one-time payment to JUUL with the elimination of a recurring 5.25% royalty obligation to Altria that otherwise could have continued through the expiration of the relevant patents in 2035. The ruling does not, however, erase Reynolds’ existing liabilities. The BAT subsidiary remains responsible for the $95 million infringement judgment and royalty payments that accrued before the JUUL sublicense took effect.
Beyond the immediate financial implications for Reynolds, the case highlights the strategic value of proprietary e-vapor technology and the importance of intellectual property licensing in the U.S. vaping market. Altria’s patents generated a substantial historical infringement award and could have supported a significant recurring royalty stream, demonstrating the economic value attached to control of key device technology.
The case also illustrates how licensing agreements can produce unintended competitive consequences years after they are signed. Altria’s legacy licensing arrangement with JUUL ultimately provided Reynolds with a mechanism to eliminate a significant ongoing payment obligation to Altria. More broadly, the litigation reflects the increasingly complex competitive and legal relationships within the U.S. e-vapor industry, where Altria, JUUL and BAT have variously operated as competitors, licensors, licensees and opposing litigants.
August 2026: ITC Revives Juul Patent Case Against Altria in High-Stakes Battle Over Redesigned Vapes
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has vacated an administrative law judge’s determination that had invalidated a key Juul Labs nicotine-salt patent, officially reviving Juul’s trade infringement case against Altria Group’s NJOY business. The full commission set aside the lower ruling after concluding that the judge relied on an improper “claim construction” – the legal definition of patent terms – when determining that 2013 prior art anticipated Juul’s technology. The decision re-opens the ITC investigation and reinstates Juul’s pursuit of federal import restrictions.
The legal conflict follows a major enforcement victory for Juul. The ITC previously issued a sweeping import ban and cease-and-desist order prohibiting Altria from importing, marketing, or selling original NJOY ACE devices and pods in the United States. That ban forced Altria to pull its flagship e-vapor product off U.S. retail shelves. In response to the import ban, Altria engineered a modified version of the NJOY ACE platform designed specifically to bypass Juul’s initial patent claims.
Juul’s asserted nicotine-salt formulation patent is the critical weapon needed to block these modified products. Juul maintains that Altria’s reworked NJOY ACE devices – along with its NJOY Daily disposable line – still rely on Juul’s proprietary nicotine-salt chemistry. Reinstating this patent allows Juul to seek a secondary ITC exclusion order targeted directly at Altria’s redesigned lineup.
NJOY represents Altria’s primary vehicle for growth in the U.S. e-vapor market, backed by rare Marketing Granted Orders from the FDA. If Juul succeeds in leveraging its revived patent to obtain an exclusion order against the modified devices, it could block Altria’s primary workaround strategy and solidify Juul’s market position in the authorized vape segment.
August 2026: ITC Limits Altria’s Patent Case Against Juul Labs
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has upheld an administrative law judge’s ruling that prevents Altria from advancing its primary patent infringement theory against Juul Labs.
The ITC affirmed that Altria cannot assert its central infringement argument because it failed to properly disclose the theory during the early discovery stages of the investigation, violating ITC procedural rules. The decision significantly restricts Altria’s legal positioning, leaving the company to rely strictly on the infringement theories that were disclosed in a timely manner. While the exclusion deprives Altria of its main argument, it does not dismiss the case entirely. The ITC investigation into whether Juul Labs infringes Altria’s remaining asserted vaping technology patents will continue toward a final determination.
The ruling underscores the ITC’s strict enforcement of discovery deadlines in Section 337 patent disputes and marks a key procedural victory for Juul in the ongoing intellectual property conflict between the two companies.
July 2026: BAT Secures Vape Patent License in Settlement with VPR Brands
British American Tobacco (BAT)’s subsidiary, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., and VPR Brands have officially agreed to dismiss their federal patent litigation. The resolution brings a high-stakes electronic cigarette technology standoff to a close via a multi-million dollar licensing deal.
Rather than continuing a protracted and costly legal battle, VPR Brands entered into a major $14.9 million settlement and patent license agreement with R.J. Reynolds. Under the terms of the agreement, VPR Brands did not sell the intellectual property outright. Instead, it granted R.J. Reynolds a non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, and perpetual license for its foundational auto-draw/buttonless electronic cigarette hardware patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,205,622 B2).
The settlement brings an abrupt end to a pre-emptive lawsuit where Reynolds had initially sought a court declaration that its market-leading vaping products—including the dominant Vuse line—did not infringe on VPR’s intellectual property. With the perpetual license secured, Reynolds effectively shields its core vapor product pipeline from future disruption regarding auto-draw activation technology.
VPR Brands PLC is a Florida-based intellectual property holding and product development company. VPR gained industry notoriety by leveraging its U.S. trademark rights to secure a federal injunction against the popular Elf Bar vapes, forcing an initial emergency U.S. rebrand to EB Design. While the manufacturers subsequently cycled through additional names like EBCreate allegedly to evade targeted FDA import alerts and customs seizures on the unauthorized vapes, the underlying trademark dispute concluded in early 2026 when Elf Bar’s parent company paid VPR $5.25 million to buy back the U.S. trademark rights.
July 2026: Altria Appeals Federal Court Refusal to Block JUUL Vape Patent Probe
Altria Group and its subsidiary NJOY LLC have escalated their legal warfare against rival JUUL Labs, filing an appeal to overturn a federal court’s refusal to halt an active U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) patent investigation. The appeal targets a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which denied Altria’s bid for a preliminary injunction. Altria had aggressively sought to freeze the ITC’s investigation into modified versions of its NJOY ACE vaping products, arguing that the trade agency lacks the constitutional authority to adjudicate the patent dispute in the first place.
Altria’s legal gamble relies on a sweeping separation-of-powers defense. The tobacco giant argues that the ITC – an administrative agency nestled under the executive branch – violates Article III of the U.S. Constitution when it attempts to adjudicate “private rights” like commercial patent disputes, which Altria contends belong exclusively in traditional federal courts.
To anchor its argument, Altria pointed directly to the Supreme Court’s watershed decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, which curbed the power of administrative agencies to bypass federal courts. Furthermore, Altria leveled structural challenges under the Appointments Clause, claiming that the ITC’s administrative law judges enjoy unconstitutional “double layers” of for-cause removal protections that isolate them from presidential oversight.
However, the Virginia court completely rejected the premise. In its memorandum opinion, the Court ruled that Altria failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits, concluding that the company did not show that the ITC’s Section 337 proceedings unlawfully encroach on federal court powers.
The underlying corporate feud centers on JUUL’s U.S. Patent No. 12,156,533, which covers nicotine-salt vaping technology. The ongoing chain of litigation is a game of high-stakes chess for control of the authorized U.S. e-vapor market:
– The Original Battle: JUUL previously used its patent portfolio to secure a sweeping ITC import ban against Altria’s original NJOY ACE devices, pulling them off retail shelves.
– The Redesign: In response, Altria engineered and rolled out modified, redesigned versions of the NJOY ACE platform specifically designed to bypass JUUL’s intellectual property claims.
– The New Probe: Refusing to yield, JUUL launched a fresh complaint at the ITC, alleging that Altria’s newly modified devices are still infringing on its patents.
For Altria, preserving the NJOY ACE platform is critical. The device is one of the very few pod-based e-vapor systems to have successfully secured marketing authorization from the FDA. If the ITC investigation is allowed to proceed and ultimately rules in JUUL’s favor, Altria faces the existential threat of another import exclusion order – effectively choking off its newly redesigned product line from entering the U.S. market. By appealing the district court’s denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Altria is making a final push to paralyze the ITC’s momentum before the trade agency can issue a ruling that could alter the future landscape of the U.S. vaping industry.
June 2026: Court Allows ITC Patent Probe Into Modified NJOY ACE Imports to Proceed
A U.S. federal judge has rejected Altria’s attempt to immediately halt an ongoing U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation into modified versions of its NJOY ACE vaping products, allowing the patent dispute with JUUL Labs to continue. Altria had argued that the ITC lacked the constitutional authority to hear JUUL’s patent claims and sought to stop the investigation before it advanced further.
The case follows a major setback for Altria last year, when the ITC ruled that the original NJOY ACE infringed four JUUL patents. As a result, Altria was forced to remove the NJOY ACE from the U.S. market and halt imports and sales of the device from March 31, 2025.
The current ITC investigation concerns modified NJOY ACE products that Altria believes avoid the patent claims at issue. The latest court decision means the ITC will continue examining whether these redesigned products also infringe JUUL’s intellectual property. The dispute remains one of the most significant patent battles in the U.S. vaping industry and could further shape competition in the authorized e-vapor market.
June 2026: Philip Morris Wins U.S. Patent Dispute Against BAT Over Nicotine Pouches
A U.S. federal judge has ruled in favor of Philip Morris International (PMI) subsidiary Swedish Match North America in a patent dispute with British American Tobacco (BAT) involving tobacco-free nicotine pouch technology. BAT alleged that Swedish Match infringed patents related to the formulation and manufacture of nicotine pouches. However, the court found that BAT failed to prove infringement and further concluded that the asserted patent claims were invalid. The judge determined that the patented concepts were either obvious in light of existing prior art or lacked sufficient inventiveness to qualify for patent protection.
The case centered on nicotine pouches, a rapidly growing segment of the smoke-free nicotine market. Both Philip Morris and BAT have invested heavily in the category as consumers increasingly shift away from combustible tobacco products. The ruling represents a significant victory for PMI, removing a potential legal threat to its nicotine pouch business and strengthening its position in the U.S. market. For BAT, the decision limits its ability to use the challenged patents to restrict competitors in the tobacco-free pouch segment. The case also highlights the growing importance of intellectual property disputes in the evolving reduced-risk nicotine market, where manufacturers are competing for market share through innovation in nicotine pouches, vaping products, and heated tobacco devices.
June 2026: ITC Reopens JUUL-NJOY Vape Patent Dispute as Legal Battle Intensifies
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has agreed to review an earlier ruling that had invalidated a key JUUL Labs nicotine-salt vaping patent, reopening a central dispute between JUUL and NJOY, the vape business owned by Altria Group. The decision revives a case that could again influence whether NJOY products can be blocked from importing into the United States.
The dispute centers on JUUL’s U.S. Patent No. 12,156,533, which has been used in ITC proceedings to support efforts to restrict imports of competing NJOY devices, including the NJOY Daily disposables and the NJOY Ace pod system. In earlier stages of the litigation, JUUL had succeeded in using patent claims to secure trade remedies, while NJOY simultaneously challenged the validity of JUUL’s intellectual property in parallel proceedings, including at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
More recently, an ITC administrative law judge issued a summary determination finding that JUUL’s asserted patent claims were invalid in light of prior art, including earlier-generation vaping technologies dating back to around 2013. That ruling significantly weakened JUUL’s enforcement position and would have removed a key legal basis for blocking NJOY imports. However, JUUL appealed the decision, and the full ITC has now agreed to review the judge’s findings, reopening questions around claim construction and validity. The Commission will now reassess how the patent claims should be interpreted and whether the invalidation was correctly decided. The outcome will determine whether JUUL can continue to rely on the patent in seeking exclusion orders against NJOY products.
This ongoing chain of litigation is strategically important for Altria. The company’s ability to market its core NJOY ACE platform in the U.S. market depends in part on neutralizing or weakening JUUL’s patent enforcement leverage at the ITC. If JUUL ultimately prevails and the patent is upheld, it could again support import restrictions or force product redesigns. If the patent is invalidated, Altria would gain a clearer and more stable path to expand NJOY ACE in the U.S. without the risk of ITC exclusion actions.
May 2026: Altria Uses ITC Ruling to Challenge Juul Patent in Federal Court
Altria and its NJOY unit told an Arizona federal court that a recent U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling undermines the validity of a key Juul Labs vaping patent. According to newly unsealed filings, an ITC judge found that vaping products sold by R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company in 2013 already contained all elements covered by JUUL’s nicotine-salt patent claims. Altria argues that the finding shows the patent lacked novelty and should therefore be invalidated.
The ruling is now being used by Altria and NJOY to defend against Juul’s separate patent infringement lawsuit in Arizona federal court involving NJOY vaping products. The case is part of a broader patent dispute between Juul Labs and Altria/NJOY over vaping technology. Earlier ITC decisions had favored JUUL and led to an import ban on NJOY ACE products.
April 2026: Altria Leverages ITC Ruling to Undercut Juul in Ongoing Vape Patent Battle
Altria is reportedly using a recent ruling from the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that found certain Juul Labs patent claims invalid to strengthen its defense in an ongoing vape-related intellectual property dispute between the two companies. The ITC decision, which addressed key technical patents asserted by Juul, is being cited by Altria as grounds to weaken or dismiss parts of Juul’s infringement allegations. While ITC determinations are not always binding in federal court, they can carry persuasive influence in parallel litigation, particularly when they involve overlapping patent issues.
The case is part of a broader, long-running legal confrontation between major players in the U.S. e-cigarette industry, where patent ownership over nicotine delivery technologies has become a central competitive battleground. Both firms have pursued multiple claims against each other in recent years, reflecting shifting market positions and the strategic importance of intellectual property in the vaping sector. Juul, once the dominant U.S. vaping brand, has previously succeeded in asserting its patents to secure an ITC import ban on Altria’s NJOY vape products, driving their removal from the U.S. market. Since then, Altria – formerly an investor in Juul – has been seeking to resolve the patent infringement dispute and re-establish its presence in the U.S. vaping market.
Overall, the dispute highlights how administrative rulings such as ITC decisions are increasingly shaping litigation strategy and competitive dynamics in the nicotine industry.
January 2026: Altria Pushes to Halt Juul-Related ITC Patent Investigation
Altria asked a federal judge in Virginia to immediately end an ongoing U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation that could block the imports of the modified NJOY ACE devices – in addition to the existing import ban on the original NJOY ACE devices. Altria argues that the ITC lacks the constitutional authority to hear JUUL Labs’ patent claims over nicotine-salt technology. In court filings, Altria said the dispute over the ITC’s jurisdiction should be resolved now and the investigation shut down outright rather than allowed to continue while the constitutional challenge plays out.
The bid is part of a broader legal battle between the e-cigarette rivals, Altria’s NJOY and JUUL Labs, with NJOY challenging the legitimacy of the ITC proceeding and seeking summary judgment and a permanent injunction on multiple constitutional grounds, including issues with administrative law judge appointments and constitutional limits (i.e. as defined by the Article III of the U.S. Constitution which establishes the judicial branch of the federal government and assigns the power to decide on legal disputes to the independent federal courts, headed by the Supreme Court).
November 2025: Altria sues U.S. International Trade Commission
Altria filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia against the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and challenged the constitutionality of the ITC’s proceedings. Altria argues that the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), who preside over patent-investigation matters, were not properly appointed under the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The lawsuit came in response to a patent infringement case alleging that NJOY’s vape products infringe JUUL’s patents.
Altria’s move presumably aims to derail or delay the patent investigation by challenging the underlying procedural legitimacy of the ITC’s jurisdiction. If the ALJ appointment challenge succeeds, it may set a precedent for other parties to contest ALJ-governed administrative proceedings under the Appointments Clause, potentially reshaping how agencies such as the ITC conduct patent-based investigations.
September 2025: ITC will investigate JUUL’s demand to block NJOY imports
In August 2025, Juul Labs launched a new patent-infringement actions against Altria and its NJOY unit, focusing on two products: NJOY Daily, a disposable e-cigarette, and a redesigned version of NJOY Ace, a pod-based system. Juul alleges these devices infringe U.S. Patent No. 12,156,533, which covers nicotine-salt formulations designed to provide cigarette-like satisfaction. The company filed both a complaint in federal court in Arizona, seeking injunctions and damages, and a petition to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to block imports of these products. The ITC confirmed that it will open an investigation into Juul’s claims.
This development follows Juul’s earlier victory at the ITC in January 2025, when the Commission found that NJOY Ace devices and pods infringed on four Juul patents, leading to an import ban set to take effect after a 60-day presidential review. Altria/NJOY has said it is working on “product modifications” to design around those patents if the ruling is upheld. With the new ITC investigation underway, Juul is doubling down on its IP enforcement strategy, signaling that nicotine-salt technology will remain a key battleground in the vaping industry. The outcome could further restrict NJOY’s offerings, force additional redesigns, and shape the competitive landscape for U.S. vape market.
August 2025: BAT Petitions Supreme Court to Overturn $95 Million Altria Vape Patent Verdict
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., a subsidiary of British American Tobacco (BAT), has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a $95.2 million jury verdict awarded to Altria Client Services LLC in a major patent infringement dispute over e-cigarette pod technology. The multi-million dollar award stems from a North Carolina federal trial, where a jury found that BAT’s Vuse Alto devices infringed three of Altria’s vaping-pod patents – a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In its Supreme Court filing, BAT argues that the damages calculation was legally flawed because it relied on unrelated patent licensing agreements rather than properly isolating the value of the specific patented features. BAT contends that the Federal Circuit’s “built-in apportionment” methodology directly conflicts with the foundational Supreme Court precedent established in Garretson v. Clark (1884), which requires damages to be explicitly divided between patented and unpatented product components. BAT’s petition frames the appeal as a critical challenge to whether the Federal Circuit can depart from established apportionment principles in complex intellectual property litigation.
August 2025: Juul Files New Patent Suits Targeting NJOY Daily and Redesigned NJOY ACE
JUUL Labs filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (District of Arizona) and submitted a case to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) claiming that two of NJOY’s vaping products – NJOY Daily and a redesigned NJOY ACE – infringe on its patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,156,533). These products reportedly employ nicotine-salt technology that delivers cigarette-like satisfaction, which Juul alleges falls within the scope of its patent rights. The dual legal action represents Juul’s effort to both litigate in federal court and seek an ITC import ban to halt distribution of the challenged NJOY devices in the U.S.
In January 2025, the ITC issued its final determination in favor of JUUL in a related matter, ordering an import ban on NJOY ACE vaping products and citing patent infringement. Following that ruling, Altria -NJOY’s parent company – halted NJOY ACE sales on March 24, 2025, which led to a sharp 70% drop in shipments and a substantial $873 million impairment charge on NJOY’s carrying value (i.e. e-vapor reporting unit goodwill). NJOY’s own attempts to invalidate Juul’s patents, including via Inter Partes Review (IPR), have been unsuccessful. In particular, they failed to invalidate Juul’s “airflow pathway” patent (US Patent No. 10,709,173), which was upheld in a final ITC determination. During the Q2 2025 earnings release, Altria stated that it completed the product design of a modified NJOY ACE solution that addresses all four disputed patents.
March 2025: ITC Terminates Altria’s Patent Action Against Juul, Securing Complete Legal Sweep
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has officially terminated Altria Group subsidiary NJOY’s patent infringement action against Juul Labs, marking a total legal victory for Juul in the multi-year e-cigarette patent battle. On March 3, 2025, the ITC affirmed a December 5, 2024 ruling by an Administrative Law Judge concluding that Juul Labs did not infringe either of the patents asserted by NJOY. The decision formally closes the retaliatory case NJOY initiated shortly after Juul launched its own ITC complaint in June 2023.
The dismissal follows Juul’s major victory on January 29, 2025, when the ITC issued a Final Determination finding that Altria’s NJOY ACE e-vapor product infringed all four patents asserted by Juul. As a result, the agency issued limited exclusion and cease-and-desist orders prohibiting Altria and NJOY from importing and selling the infringing NJOY ACE products until the patents expire in 2034 and 2037. Those enforcement orders remain scheduled to take full effect on March 31, 2025, following the conclusion of the 60-day presidential review period.
January 2025: ITC Issues Final Ruling Against Altria’s NJOY in Juul Patent Dispute, Ordering Import Ban
US International Trade Commission (ITC) issued its final determination in JUUL’s patent infringement case against NJOY and agreed with JUUL’s claims with respect to the four patents at issue in the case. As a remedy, the Commission issued limited exclusion order against NJOY, prohibiting the importation of any vape product or component that infringes one or more of following claims:
– Claims 1 and 15 of US Patent No. 11,134,722 (the ‘722 patent)
– Claims 1 and 8 of US Patent No. 11,606,981 (the ‘981 patent)
– Claims 27 and 32 of US Patent No. 10,130,123 (the ‘123 Patent’)
– Claims 1 and 4 of US Patent No. 10,709,173 (‘173 Patent).
Moreover, ITC issued cease & desist orders against each of the NJOY respondents, prohibiting the sales & distribution of the infringing NJOY products in the US market. The ITC decision is now under a 60-day review period by the Office of the Trade Representative. If the Trade Representative does not reject the ITC’s decision (most likely), the exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders will take effect on March 31, 2025 or earlier if the Trade Representative notifies the ITC of approval before the 60 days elapse.
NJOY continues to work on product modifications to address all of the patents at issue in the event of ITC decision not being rejected by the Trade Representative. The final exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but a stay order (i.e. to put the import ban on hold) is unlikely during the pendency of such an appeal.
We expect NJOY ACE to be removed from the US market as of April 2025. Altria is likely complete the necessary product modifications (design workarounds) and re-launch NJOY ACE only in 2026 (our base case scenario unless Altria Management commits to another timeline).
December 2024: RJ Reynolds loses appeal in Altria e-cigarette patent case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a North Carolina jury’s decision that vaping devices from R.J. Reynolds’ VUSE line infringed three Altria e-cigarette patents and upheld a $95.2 million jury verdict. R.J. Reynolds (RJR), known as Reynolds American, is London-based British American Tobacco’s U.S. subsidiary.
Altria sued RJR in 2020 for infringing patents in pod-based vaping systems and requested royalties from sales of RJR’s VUSE Alto e-cigarettes. A jury in Greensboro, N.C., agreed with Altria in 2022 and awarded it $95.2 million in damages for RJR’s patent infringement. RJR appealed to the Federal Circuit that its products did not infringe, the patents were invalid and the damages were excessive. A three-judge Federal Circuit panel rejected RJR’s arguments with one judge was in a partial dissent and would have granted RJR’s request for a new trial on damages unless Altria agreed to give up “approximately half” of the award.
The Federal Circuit panel also affirmed the court-ordered ongoing royalty at a rate of 5.25% for sales of Reynolds’ VUSE Alto product through the lifespan of Altria’s patents.
August 2024: ITC Judge Rules NJOY Infringes Juul Patents, Recommends Import Ban on NJOY ACE
An Administrative Law Judge with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has issued an initial determination siding with Juul Labs in its patent dispute against Altria Group subsidiary NJOY. The judge recommended an exclusion order that would block the importation of NJOY ACE e-cigarettes into the United States. Altria and NJOY pushed back against the finding, stating they respectfully disagree with the judge’s determination and will present their case to the full ITC Commission ahead of a expected final decision by December 23, 2024.
The decision marks a critical turn in an escalating dispute involving cross-complaints, mediation, and regulatory maneuvers:
– Public Health Concerns: Emphasizing the regulatory standing of its product line, Altria highlighted that NJOY ACE is the first pod-based e-vapor system – and the only menthol pod-based system – authorized by the FDA as appropriate for the protection of public health, warning that an import ban would severely restrict authorized alternatives for adult smokers.
– Parallel Action Against Juul: NJOY filed its own independent patent infringement complaint against Juul with the ITC in August 2023 seeking an import ban on Juul devices. Following an evidentiary hearing in June 2024, an initial determination is expected in late September. However, Altria noted that a favorable ruling in its own case would not block an exclusion order against NJOY ACE from taking effect.
– Mediation and FDA Workarounds: Both parties are actively working with a mediator to negotiate a potential settlement. Concurrently, NJOY recently filed Substantial Equivalence Exemption requests with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a slightly modified NJOY ACE model, which Altria expects will eliminate three of the four Juul patent claims at issue.
February 2024: Philip Morris and BAT Reach Landmark Global Patent Settlement
British American Tobacco (BAT) and Philip Morris International (PMI) have agreed to a landmark global settlement, resolving all ongoing patent infringement litigation between the two companies regarding heated tobacco and vapor products.
The agreement, which is valid for an eight-year term starting February 1, 2024, relies on non-monetary provisions to resolve all active disputes worldwide. Under the terms of the accord, all existing injunctions and exclusion orders will be lifted, and neither company will be permitted to file future patent claims against each other’s current heated tobacco and vapor products. Additionally, the agreement ensures that both manufacturers retain the ability to innovate and roll out next-generation product iterations without the threat of renewed legal action.
The resolution clears the path for PMI to proceed with the U.S. launch of its IQOS device, scheduled for May 2024, following years of legal blocks that prevented imports. Speaking during BAT’s full-year 2023 financial results release, BAT Chief Executive Tadeu Marroco highlighted the settlement’s broader impact, noting that it resolves major ongoing cases including action against Vuse Alto in Virginia, as well as litigation involving glo in Europe and Vuse in Germany. Leadership from both companies noted that the truce provides vital “freedom to innovate” and commercial certainty, allowing both firms to focus on expanding their smoke-free alternative portfolios globally.
November 2023: Patent Wars Intensify as Juul Challenges NJOY Patents and PMI Battles BAT Across Global Courts
The multi-front intellectual property conflicts among major e-cigarette and heated tobacco manufacturers escalated this month, with significant legal developments involving Juul Labs, Altria’s NJOY, Philip Morris International (PMI), and British American Tobacco (BAT).
Juul Labs has requested that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancel two e-cigarette patents held by Altria subsidiary NJOY. The patents – US Patent No.11,497,864 and US Patent No. 10,334,881 – lie at the center of an ongoing U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation that threatens to block imports of Juul devices into the United States. In its petition, Juul argues that the targeted claims regarding vaporizer modifications are invalid because they were well-known, obvious, and rendered unpatentable by prior art from three Chinese inventions.
Meanwhile, court records revealed additional details surrounding PMI’s recent loss against BAT subsidiary R.J. Reynolds in a U.S. federal appeals court regarding the ongoing import ban on PMI’s IQOS system. PMI had challenged Reynolds’ U.S. Patent No. 9,901,123 as obvious based on prior art patents (“Hon” and “Whittemore”). However, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled that combining Whittemore’s wick and wire design with Hon’s heating element was not an obvious substitution for a skilled artisan. The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision, ruling that the PTAB’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, including expert testimony and product tear-down report analysis.
September 2023: Altria’s NJOY Advances Import Challenge Against Juul as Philip Morris Loses Key Patent Appeal
The legal battles surrounding next-generation tobacco and vapor devices accelerated on two fronts this month, marked by a new federal probe into Juul Labs and a significant courtroom defeat for Philip Morris International.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has formally opened an investigation into Juul Labs following a patent infringement complaint filed by Altria Group subsidiary NJOY. The action advances NJOY’s bid to block U.S. imports and sales of certain Juul devices and pods, which NJOY claims infringe on US Patent No. 10,334,881 and US Patent No. 11,497,864. ITC investigations offer a faster path to resolution than federal district courts, typically concluding within 15 to 18 months.
Meanwhile, Philip Morris International (PMI) suffered a major legal setback in its ongoing conflict with British American Tobacco (BAT) subsidiary R.J. Reynolds. A federal appeals court rejected PMI’s challenge to Reynolds’ US Patent No. 9,901,123, which covers a tobacco-containing smoking article. The court’s decision leaves the patent intact – a critical outcome given that the ITC’s current U.S. import ban on PMI’s flagship IQOS heated tobacco system relies directly on the infringement of this patent.
August 2023: Altria and NJOY Seek Import Ban on Juul Products in Counter-Patent Action
Altria Group and its subsidiary NJOY have filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) seeking to block the importation and sale of certain Juul Labs e-cigarette devices and pods. In the trade filing, NJOY alleges that Juul’s products infringe on U.S. Patent Nos. 11,497,864 and 10,334,881. NJOY previously acquired both patents from Fuma as part of a patent infringement settlement. In tandem with the request for an ITC exclusion order, NJOY filed a parallel patent infringement complaint against Juul Labs in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The legal counter-offensive comes shortly after Juul initiated its own ITC complaint against Altria and NJOY, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing intellectual property dispute surrounding next-generation vapor technologies.
June 2023: Juul Labs Seeks Import Ban on Altria’s NJOY Ace Over Patent Infringement Claims
Juul Labs has requested that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) block the importation and sale of NJOY Ace e-cigarettes, alleging that the Altria-owned product line infringes on several of Juul’s patents.
In its complaint, Juul Labs highlighted its successful track record before the trade agency, noting that it prevailed in all three of its prior ITC cases involving counterfeit and unauthorized compatible vaping products. In addition to the trade action seeking an exclusion order, Juul Labs filed a parallel patent infringement lawsuit against NJOY in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The legal filings mark an aggressive stance by Juul to protect its technology assets following Altria’s acquisition of NJOY.
April 2023: Federal Judge Orders BAT to Pay Ongoing Patent Royalties to Philip Morris for Vuse Products
A federal judge has ordered British American Tobacco (BAT) subsidiary R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. to pay ongoing patent royalties to Philip Morris International (PMI) for technology used in its Vuse Alto and Solo G2 e-cigarette lines. Under the court order, BAT must pay PMI 1.8% of net sales on Vuse Alto cartridges and 2.2% of net sales on Vuse Solo G2 cartridges for the remaining life of the patents.
The decision comes as the judge denied PMI’s request for a permanent injunction that would have pulled Vuse products from U.S. retail shelves, while also rejecting PMI’s demand for significantly higher royalty rates of 33.5% on Alto cartridges and 3.75% on Solo G2 devices. The newly established running royalties will be enforced on top of 2022 jury awards that previously granted PMI $10.9 million for Alto patent infringement and $3.2 million for Solo G2 infringement.
September 2022: BAT Scores Patent Wins Against PMI while Facing $95 Million Altria Damages Verdict
Legal clashes among the world’s largest tobacco manufacturers intensified as British American Tobacco (BAT), Philip Morris International (PMI), and Altria Group traded major blows in high-stakes patent battles spanning the U.S. and the U.K.
In London, a major intellectual property trial opened as BAT formally accused PMI of infringing its induction heating technology patents – the core mechanism powering BAT’s glo Hyper and PMI’s flagship IQOS Iluma heated-tobacco devices. Concurrently, BAT scored a key regulatory victory against PMI in the United States, where the U.S. Patent Office invalidated 13 claims in PMI’s “556” patent regarding aerosol-generating cartridge designs, ruling them unpatentable based on BAT’s arguments of obviousness.
However, BAT’s subsidiary R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. suffered a substantial financial setback in a separate U.S. dispute with Altria Group. A court ordered Reynolds to pay Altria $95 million in past damages after finding that the pod assembly design for the market-leading Vuse Alto infringed three Altria patents. The damages were calculated using a 5.25% royalty rate, marking one of the largest financial payouts to date in the ongoing IP wars over alternative nicotine technologies.
August 2022: Altria and Philip Morris Escalate Patent Battles Against BAT and R.J. Reynolds
Legal pressures are intensifying for British American Tobacco (BAT) and its subsidiary R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., as both Altria Group and Philip Morris International (PMI) press forward with high-stakes patent enforcement actions against the company’s vaping hardware.
Altria has alleged in federal court that BAT stole its pod-style e-cigarette design, claiming the competitor copied three Altria patents without paying royalties. According to Altria’s court filings, BAT acquired the underlying vape concept from a Chinese manufacturer before rebranding the technology as its own.
Concurrently, a federal judge has increased a previous jury award, ordering BAT and R.J. Reynolds to pay PMI more than $14 million. The updated judgment includes prejudgment interest and supplemental damages related to patents covering compact heating components and leak-prevention mechanisms. Following the ruling, BAT’s flagship Vuse Solo G2 and Vuse Alto products face potential market injunctions or ongoing royalty payments.
July 2022: Philip Morris Invalidates Key Claims in BAT Heating Patent
Philip Morris International (PMI) has secured another legal victory against rival British American Tobacco (BAT) after convincing a U.S. administrative tribunal to invalidate key claims in a disputed patent held by BAT subsidiary R.J. Reynolds. The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board struck down two claims within a BAT patent for a “tobacco-containing, electrical smoking article” engineered to burn a minimal amount of tobacco. The decision marks the latest maneuver in the ongoing global intellectual property battle between the two tobacco giants as they clash over patents covering heated tobacco and alternative nicotine technologies.
June 2022: UK High Court Rejects Philip Morris Stay Bid as Reynolds Faces $14 Million Patent Damages
The UK High Court has rejected a request by Philip Morris International (PMI) to stay patent proceedings involving rival British American Tobacco (BAT). The decision maintains momentum in the ongoing international intellectual property disputes between the two companies, following a March 2021 High Court ruling that revoked two of BAT’s e-cigarette patents due to obviousness, finding they lacked an inventive step over a prior PMI patent.
Meanwhile, BAT subsidiary R.J. Reynolds Vapor faces $14 million in damages after courts determined the company infringed on two key PMI patents. The infringed intellectual property covers a compact heater designed to improve e-cigarette vaporization efficiency, as well as a mechanical design that prevents liquid leakage inside vaping devices.
May 2022: Federal Judge Reaches Compromise in Twin Patent Disputes Between Philip Morris and BAT
A judge overseeing twin intellectual property lawsuits between Philip Morris International (PMI) and British American Tobacco (BAT) has reached a procedural compromise, handing partial victories to both tobacco giants as their broader patent battle continues. In one suit, the judge ruled in favor of PMI, allowing the company to move forward with an application for declaratory relief regarding the contested intellectual property. In the parallel case, however, the judge ruled in favor of BAT, granting the company’s motion for an expedited trial date. The balanced decisions allow both manufacturers to advance key elements of their legal strategies as the high-stakes conflict over next-generation tobacco hardware moves ahead in court.
November 2021: U.S. Import Ban on IQOS Takes Effect as Biden Administration Declines to Intervene
Imports of Philip Morris International and Altria Group’s IQOS heated tobacco system have been officially barred from entering the United States after a 60-day presidential review period passed without administrative intervention. The Biden Administration declined to overturn a September order issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which determined that the IQOS product line infringed on two patents held by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, a subsidiary of British American Tobacco. With the deadline for executive action now expired, the ITC’s import and sales ban takes full effect, halting further shipments into the country and forcing the removal of the device from U.S. retail channels.
September 2021: U.S. Trade Commission Bars Philip Morris and Altria from Importing and Selling IQOS
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has issued an order barring Philip Morris International and Altria Group from importing and selling the IQOS heated tobacco device in the United States. The regulatory decision follows a patent infringement lawsuit brought by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, a subsidiary of British American Tobacco (BAT). After investigating the claims, the trade agency determined that the IQOS product line infringes on two patents held by Reynolds.
The import and sales ban is set to take effect in two months following a mandatory 60-day administrative review period, during which the ruling can be reviewed by the Presidential administration. If upheld, the ban will pull the flagship heated tobacco system off the U.S. market.
