Reynolds American & Philip Morris Products v. Altria — Six-Patent Tobacco Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
Reynolds American and Philip Morris Products brought a six-patent infringement appeal at the Federal Circuit against Altria Client Services and Philip Morris USA, targeting smoking article and tobacco product technologies. The parties reached agreement to dismiss the proceeding under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) within 265 days, with each side bearing its own costs — suggesting a negotiated resolution outside the public record.
Six-patent tobacco appeal ends by mutual agreement at the Federal Circuit
Filed on 16 May 2023 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Case No. 23-1892 pitted Reynolds American, Inc. and Philip Morris Products, S.A. (appellants) against Altria Client Services, LLC and Philip Morris USA, Inc. (appellees). The infringement action concerned six US patents — US9901123B2, US9839238B2, US9814268B2, US10432542B2, US10492542B1, and US9930915B2 — all directed at smoking articles and tobacco-containing products for yielding inhalation materials. Plaintiffs were represented by Jones Day; defendants by Latham & Watkins.
The appeal closed on 5 February 2024 via voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), with the court ordering that each side bear its own costs. The dismissal was entered by mutual agreement of the parties, as reflected in the court’s order language: ‘The parties having so agreed.’ Crucially, the order does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, leaving the preclusive effect of the termination ambiguous on the public record.
At 265 days, the appeal resolved well before a typical Federal Circuit merits briefing schedule would conclude, suggesting the parties likely reached a commercial or licensing arrangement that made continued litigation unnecessary. The equal cost allocation — rather than any cost award — is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a concession by either side. The underlying district court proceedings and any licensing terms remain outside the public record of this appeal.
Filing to resolution in 265 days
265-day appeal — resolved before full Federal Circuit briefing cycle typically concludes
How and why the Federal Circuit appeal was voluntarily dismissed
Dismissed by mutual consent under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)
Rule 42(b) allows a court of appeals to dismiss a docketed appeal on the motion of the appellant or by agreement of the parties. Here, the order confirms the parties ‘having so agreed,’ indicating a bilateral decision to end the appellate proceeding. This mechanism is commonly used when parties resolve disputes commercially and wish to exit litigation cleanly without a merits ruling from the appellate court.
Bilateral voluntary exitWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ bars the plaintiff from refiling the same claims; ‘without prejudice’ preserves that right. The court’s order in this case does not specify either. Under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), the default is that terms are as agreed by the parties — meaning any prejudice determination may exist in a private settlement agreement not filed with the court. Neither party’s litigation rights can be confirmed from the public record alone.
Prejudice terms undisclosedEach side bears own costs — no fee-shifting signal
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, declining to award appellate costs to either side. In patent appeals, a costs award to the prevailing party is common; the equal split here is consistent with a negotiated mutual exit rather than any capitulation. It also avoids creating a fee-shifting precedent that could signal weakness in either party’s appellate position.
Symmetric cost splitSix patents across a decade of smoking article filings
The six asserted patents span application dates from approximately 2014 to 2019, covering a range of smoking article constructions and tobacco inhalation technologies. Asserting a six-patent portfolio in a single appeal suggests a coordinated enforcement strategy — likely targeting a broad swath of product features rather than a single design element. The breadth of the portfolio makes the undisclosed settlement terms commercially significant for the tobacco sector.
Multi-patent enforcement playFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Reynolds American, Inc. | Company | Tobacco industry IP holders — jointly asserting 6 patents on smoking article technologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Altria Client Services, LLC | Company | Altria Client Services and Philip Morris USA — tobacco product manufacturers and distributorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexis Adian Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Reynolds American, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amelia A. DeGory | Attorney | Counsel for Reynolds American, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Michael Maiorana | Attorney | Counsel for Reynolds American, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason Burnette | Attorney | Counsel for Reynolds American, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John R. Boule III | Attorney | Counsel for Reynolds American, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samuel Reilly | Attorney | Counsel for Reynolds American, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Devitt | Attorney | Counsel for Reynolds American, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jamie Underwood | Attorney | Counsel for Altria Client Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge | Chief Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order — ‘The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). Each side shall bear their own costs’ — is narrow in scope: it terminates the appellate proceeding without reaching the merits of the six asserted patents. No validity or infringement finding was made. The bilateral cost order forecloses any argument that one party secured a de facto win. The absence of a prejudice designation means the enforceability of these patents against the same defendants in future proceedings cannot be determined from this order alone.
US9901123B2 and five related patents — smoking article and tobacco inhalation technology
The six patents asserted in this case — US9901123B2, US9839238B2, US9814268B2, US10432542B2, US10492542B1, and US9930915B2 — cover smoking articles and tobacco-containing products designed to yield inhalation materials. Filed across application numbers spanning roughly 2014 to 2019, the portfolio reflects a multi-year IP building program in smoking article construction and delivery mechanics. The technical domain sits at the intersection of traditional combustible tobacco and next-generation inhalation product engineering, a field of intense R&D investment across the major tobacco groups.
The strategic value of this portfolio lies in its breadth: six patents targeting a range of product configurations means a competitor cannot design around a single claim without potentially encountering another family member. For companies developing heated tobacco units, novel smoking articles, or inhalation delivery mechanisms, these patents represent a material freedom-to-operate risk. The fact that two of the world’s largest tobacco groups — on opposing sides of this litigation — reached a private resolution without a merits ruling leaves the enforceability and scope of these claims unresolved for third parties.
Should your product team run an FTO against these six smoking article patents?
Any company developing or commercialising smoking articles, heated tobacco products, or novel tobacco inhalation systems should assess exposure against this patent family. The portfolio spans multiple application years and product configurations, meaning standard design-around strategies may not neutralise risk across all six patents. Given the voluntary dismissal without a public merits ruling, none of these patents have been adjudicated invalid or found not infringed — their enforceability remains intact.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the claim language of all six patents simultaneously, flagging overlap and identifying which claims pose the highest risk. Eureka’s claim monitoring tools also track continuation applications filed in these families — a critical capability given the multi-year filing window already demonstrated by this portfolio. Set up alerts to catch new claims that could capture next-generation product iterations before they reach the market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9901123B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit tobacco and smoking article patent appeals
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the tobacco and nicotine product IP landscape
A quietly resolved Federal Circuit appeal involving tobacco majors and six smoking article patents carries strategic implications for IP teams across the sector.
Mutual dismissals at the Federal Circuit often mask licensing outcomes
When two sophisticated parties represented by Jones Day and Latham & Watkins agree to dismiss an appeal with no cost award, a private licensing or cross-licensing arrangement is a plausible driver. IP teams monitoring the tobacco sector should treat this resolution as a signal that the asserted patents may now be licensed — potentially affecting freedom-to-operate analyses for competitors.
Six-patent assertions signal coordinated portfolio enforcement, not opportunistic filing
Asserting six patents across a single appeal — spanning multiple application years and product configurations — suggests Reynolds American and Philip Morris Products pursued a deliberate portfolio enforcement strategy. Companies in adjacent nicotine delivery sectors (heated tobacco, oral nicotine) should audit their own product designs against this patent family cluster to assess exposure.
Reynolds v Altria — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed by mutual agreement of the parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 5 February 2024. No merits ruling was issued. The court ordered each side to bear its own costs. The dismissal did not specify whether it was with or without prejudice.
Six US patents were asserted: US9901123B2, US9839238B2, US9814268B2, US10432542B2, US10492542B1, and US9930915B2. All relate to smoking articles and tobacco-containing products for yielding inhalation materials, with application dates spanning approximately 2014 to 2019.
A Rule 42(b) dismissal terminates the appellate proceeding without a merits ruling on validity or infringement. It does not invalidate the patents. Unless a private settlement agreement specifies otherwise, the patents remain enforceable. The prejudice status of the dismissal — which would determine whether the same defendants can be sued again — is not stated in the public record.
The case was an infringement action appeal, meaning a lower court proceeding preceded it. The appellants — Reynolds American and Philip Morris Products — were challenging or defending a lower court outcome relating to the six smoking article patents. The specific lower court decision being appealed is not detailed in the available case record for this Federal Circuit docket.
The order that each side bear its own costs — rather than awarding costs to a prevailing party — is consistent with a negotiated bilateral exit from litigation. It avoids signalling that either party conceded on the merits, and is a common feature of voluntary dismissals that accompany private settlement or licensing arrangements. It also avoids triggering fee-shifting analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for exceptional case findings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.