Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Fan Bao & Zico USA v. Wenzhou Haoke — Tobacco Tube Filler Patent | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID8:22-cv-01885
FiledOct 2022
ClosedDec 2024
Patent Litigation

Fan Bao & Zico USA v. Wenzhou Haoke: Tobacco Tube Filler Patents Settled

Fan Bao and Zico USA, Inc. filed suit against Chinese manufacturer Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and distributor Epeus Co., Ltd. in the Central District of California, asserting a design patent and a utility patent covering tobacco tube filler devices. The parties reached a settlement in principle after 791 days of litigation.

Resolution time
791days
791 days — above the median for patent cases in C.D. Cal., suggesting substantive negotiation before resolution
Patents asserted
2
USD0961152S and US10701965B2 — tobacco tube filler device design and utility patents
Outcome
Case Settled
Parties reached settlement in principle; formal dismissal targeted by January 31, 2025
Cost ruling
Not disclosed
Settlement terms, including any cost or fee allocation, are not part of the public record
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Tobacco tube filler patent dispute ends in private settlement

On October 14, 2022, plaintiffs Fan Bao — an individual inventor — and Zico USA, Inc. filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 8:22-cv-01885). The defendants were Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., a Chinese appliance manufacturer, Epeus Co., Ltd., and individual Wu Xinghong. The asserted patents were USD0961152S, a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a tobacco tube filler device, and US10701965B2, a utility patent covering systems, methods, and devices for delivering tobacco into tobacco casing tubes.

After 791 days of litigation, the parties filed a joint notice on or around December 13, 2024, confirming they had reached a settlement in principle and were drafting a long-form settlement agreement, with a target dismissal date of no later than January 31, 2025. The court was asked to adjourn all pending deadlines and hearings pending that formal dismissal. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Settled,’ consistent with a private resolution rather than a court-imposed judgment on the merits.

The 791-day duration — more than two years from filing to settlement notice — suggests the parties engaged in substantive discovery and motion practice before reaching agreement. The involvement of a Chinese manufacturer and a co-defendant distribution entity, alongside both design and utility patent claims, likely added complexity to claim construction and jurisdictional considerations. The specific financial terms, any licensing arrangement, and the precise scope of the settlement remain confidential and are not reflected in the public court record.

Case at a glance
Case no.8:22-cv-01885
PlaintiffFan Bao
CourtCalifornia Central
JudgeN/A
FiledOctober 14, 2022
ClosedDecember 13, 2024
Duration791 days
OutcomeCase Settled
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisCase Settled
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / California Central District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Case Settled in 791 days

791 days — above the median for patent cases in C.D. Cal., suggesting substantive negotiation before resolution

Case timeline: Complaint filed OCT 14 2022, NOV–DEC — 791 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Fan Bao v Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, California Central District Court. OCT 14 2022 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings DEC 13 2024 Case Settled 791 DAYS TOTAL
Settlement terms

Case settled: what the resolution means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Settlement in principle — not a merits adjudication

A ‘settlement in principle’ means the parties agreed on the key commercial terms but had not yet executed a final written agreement at the time of the court filing. No court ruling was issued on infringement, validity, or damages. The case was to be formally dismissed once the long-form agreement was signed, likely under a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), though the public record does not confirm dismissal terms.

No merits ruling issued
Patent holder outcome

Plaintiffs avoided the risk of invalidity findings

By settling, Fan Bao and Zico USA avoided the risk of an adverse claim construction ruling or invalidity determination that could have weakened USD0961152S and US10701965B2 against future infringers. Settlement also typically implies some form of consideration — financial or behavioural — flowing to the plaintiff, though the public record is silent on specific terms. Both patents remain enforceable unless separately challenged.

Patents remain enforceable
Defendant outcome

Wenzhou Haoke and Epeus avoided a public infringement finding

Settlement allows Wenzhou Haoke, Epeus Co., Ltd., and individual Wu Xinghong to resolve the dispute without an admission of infringement. This is commercially significant for a manufacturer exporting to the U.S. market, as a public infringement judgment could complicate future import clearance and customer relationships. The terms of any ongoing product restrictions or royalty obligations are not publicly available.

No admission of infringement
Commercial implications

Design + utility patent pairing strengthens enforcement posture

The assertion of both a design patent (USD0961152S) and a utility patent (US10701965B2) in a single action reflects a layered enforcement strategy that is increasingly common in consumer product IP disputes involving Chinese manufacturers. Competitors and importers of tobacco tube filler devices should note that this patent portfolio survived litigation without any public weakening of scope, and the holder retains full enforcement rights against third parties.

Dual-patent enforcement strategy
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 8:22-cv-01885 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffFan BaoIndividualIndividual inventor and consumer tobacco products company — holders of USD0961152S and US10701965B2Search in Eureka ↗
Co-PlaintiffZico USA, Inc.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantWenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.CompanyChinese electric appliance manufacturer and U.S. distributor accused of infringing tobacco tube filler device patentsSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantEpeus Co., Ltd.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantWu XinghongIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselNathaniel L. DilgerAttorneyCounsel for Fan BaoSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselPeter R. AfrasiabiAttorneyCounsel for Fan BaoSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselTaylor C. FossAttorneyCounsel for Fan BaoSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmOne LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Fan BaoSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselGokalp BayramogluAttorneyCounsel for Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMatthew C. WolfAttorneyCounsel for Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselNihat Deniz BayramogluAttorneyCounsel for Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRobert E. AycockAttorneyCounsel for Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselShawn A. ManganoAttorneyCounsel for Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmBayramoglu Law Offices LLCLaw FirmRepresenting Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmKimball Anderson Law FirmLaw FirmRepresenting Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmTurner Henningsen Wolf and VanDenburg, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge N/AJudgeCalifornia Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs Fan Bao and Zico USA, Inc. and Defendant Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (collectively the “Parties”) have reached a settlement in principle in this matter. The Parties are in the process of drafting a long form settlement agreement, and intend to dismiss this case no later than January 31, 2025. As such, the Parties respectfully request that the Court adjourn all pending deadlines, hearings, and appearances, pending dismissal.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 8:22-cv-01885, California Central District Court

The settlement notice confirms that the parties reached agreement on principal terms but explicitly states that a long-form agreement was still being drafted. The public record therefore reflects a settlement in principle, not a final executed resolution. No infringement finding, validity ruling, or damages award was issued by the court. The adjournment of all pending deadlines is consistent with standard practice when parties represent imminent dismissal — the substantive merits of the claims under USD0961152S and US10701965B2 were never judicially determined.

PACER case 8:22-cv-01885 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

USD0961152S & US10701965B2 — Tobacco Tube Filler Device Patents

Publication No.USD0961152S
Application No.US29/741466
Patent details
ProductOrnamental design of a tobacco tube filler device
Cited in actionOctober 14, 2022

Publication No.US10701965B2
Application No.US15/818627
Patent details
ProductSystems, methods, and devices for delivering tobacco into tobacco casing tubes
Cited in actionOctober 14, 2022

USD0961152S is a design patent (application no. US29/741466) protecting the ornamental appearance of a tobacco tube filler device — a consumer product used to fill empty cigarette tubes with loose tobacco. US10701965B2 (application no. US15/818627) is a utility patent covering the systems, methods, and devices for delivering tobacco into tobacco casing tubes, protecting the functional mechanics of the filling process. Together, they provide both aesthetic and functional IP coverage over what is a compact, consumer-facing hardware product in the tobacco accessories category.

The combination of a design and a utility patent over the same product category creates a layered barrier to competitive entry that is particularly effective against manufacturers who might attempt to design around one but not both forms of protection. For any company developing, importing, or distributing tobacco tube filler devices in the U.S. market, both patents represent live enforcement risk. The settlement — reached without any public validity challenge succeeding — means neither patent has been judicially narrowed or invalidated, leaving their full scope intact against third parties.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against USD0961152S and US10701965B2?

Any company manufacturing, importing, distributing, or retailing tobacco tube filler devices or similar tobacco casing filling hardware in the U.S. market should treat these patents as active enforcement risks. The plaintiffs demonstrated willingness to pursue litigation through more than two years of proceedings against a Chinese OEM and its U.S. distribution partner. A freedom-to-operate analysis covering both the design and functional claims is warranted before product launch or scaling.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10701965B2’s method and system claims against your product architecture, and compare the ornamental design of USD0961152S against your device’s form factor. Eureka surfaces prior art, related family members, and prosecution history that may inform design-around options — giving your R&D and legal teams the intelligence needed to make informed go/no-go decisions before entering the U.S. tobacco accessories market.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0961152S to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar tobacco accessories patent disputes in C.D. Cal. and related courts

Browse comparable patent infringement actions involving tobacco hardware and consumer accessories design patents filed in the Central District of California and related federal courts.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Fan Bao patent enforcement history, California Central case history, Fan Bao’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Tobacco device design patentsC.D. Cal. OEM infringement suitsChinese manufacturer IP disputesConsumer accessories utility patents
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the tobacco accessories IP landscape

A settled design-plus-utility patent suit against a Chinese OEM signals active enforcement in the tobacco accessories hardware space.

Dual-patent strategy raises the cost of defence for OEM importers

Asserting a design patent and a utility patent together forces defendants to defend on two distinct legal fronts — ornamental appearance and functional method. This raises defence costs and settlement leverage for patent holders targeting Chinese manufacturers selling into the U.S. market. Companies sourcing tobacco accessories from Chinese OEMs should conduct design clearance as well as FTO for functional claims.

Settlement without merits ruling preserves plaintiff’s full enforcement arsenal

Because the case resolved by settlement rather than adjudication, neither USD0961152S nor US10701965B2 received a public validity or infringement ruling. Both patents remain at full strength. Any competitor that has not independently assessed these patents faces the same litigation risk as Wenzhou Haoke did — without the benefit of a court record to rely on as prior art or invalidity support.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock gated insights on cross-border tobacco accessories patent enforcement and C.D. Cal. district-level strategy.
Personal liability tacticsVenue strategy analysisPortfolio enforcement risk score
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Bao v Wenzhou — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Assess your exposure to tobacco accessories patent enforcement

USD0961152S and US10701965B2 survived 791 days of litigation with no public invalidity finding. Run an FTO search and set up enforcement monitoring to protect your product roadmap in the tobacco accessories space.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.