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.
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.
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 settled: what the resolution means for both parties
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 issuedPlaintiffs 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 enforceableWenzhou 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 infringementDesign + 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 strategyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Fan Bao | Individual | Individual inventor and consumer tobacco products company — holders of USD0961152S and US10701965B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Zico USA, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese electric appliance manufacturer and U.S. distributor accused of infringing tobacco tube filler device patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Epeus Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Wu Xinghong | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nathaniel L. Dilger | Attorney | Counsel for Fan BaoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter R. Afrasiabi | Attorney | Counsel for Fan BaoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Taylor C. Foss | Attorney | Counsel for Fan BaoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | One LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fan BaoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gokalp Bayramoglu | Attorney | Counsel for Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew C. Wolf | Attorney | Counsel for Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nihat Deniz Bayramoglu | Attorney | Counsel for Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert E. Aycock | Attorney | Counsel for Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shawn A. Mangano | Attorney | Counsel for Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC | Law Firm | Representing Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kimball Anderson Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Turner Henningsen Wolf and VanDenburg, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
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.
USD0961152S & US10701965B2 — Tobacco Tube Filler Device Patents
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.
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.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0961152S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →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.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Systems, methods, and devices for delivering tobacco into tobacco casing tubes-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedFan Bao’s broader IP enforcement history
Fan Bao’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat 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.
Wu Xinghong as named defendant signals potential piercing of corporate veil risk
The inclusion of individual defendant Wu Xinghong alongside the corporate entities suggests plaintiffs pursued personal liability theories. This is a notable tactic in cross-border IP disputes with Chinese manufacturers and may signal that plaintiffs had evidence of direct personal involvement in infringing conduct — a pattern worth monitoring in similar enforcement actions.
C.D. Cal. venue choice reflects strategic calculation for cross-border enforcement
Filing in the Central District of California — rather than a district closer to the U.S. distribution point — suggests a deliberate venue choice, possibly tied to Zico USA’s business location or counsel relationships. C.D. Cal. has well-developed patent local rules and a large population of import-focused defendants, making it an increasingly favoured venue for actions targeting Chinese OEM product lines.
Bao v Wenzhou — key questions answered
Plaintiffs asserted two patents: USD0961152S, a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a tobacco tube filler device (application US29/741466), and US10701965B2, a utility patent covering systems, methods, and devices for delivering tobacco into tobacco casing tubes (application US15/818627).
The case resolved by settlement. On or around December 13, 2024 — 791 days after filing — the parties filed a joint notice confirming a settlement in principle and requesting adjournment of all deadlines pending execution of a formal agreement and dismissal by January 31, 2025. No merits ruling was issued.
The defendants were Wenzhou Haoke Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (a Chinese appliance manufacturer), Epeus Co., Ltd. (a co-defendant entity), and individual Wu Xinghong. Multiple law firms including Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC and Kimball Anderson Law Firm appeared for the defence.
Yes. Because the case settled without a court ruling on validity or infringement, neither patent was judicially narrowed or invalidated. Both USD0961152S and US10701965B2 remain enforceable at their full published scope against third parties, and the patent holders retain all enforcement rights.
Naming an individual defendant alongside corporate entities typically suggests the plaintiff sought to establish personal liability — potentially for direct infringement or for inducing infringement — beyond the corporate shield. This is a tactic sometimes used in cross-border IP disputes to increase settlement pressure and to address scenarios where corporate structures may complicate enforcement of any eventual judgment.
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.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.