Smoore v. Greentank: E-cigarette Atomizer Patent Dispute Dismissed Without Prejudice
Shenzhen Smoore Technology filed suit against Greentank Technologies in the Central District of California, asserting three patents covering e-cigarette atomizer and liquid-leakage prevention technology. After 803 days of litigation, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims without prejudice, each bearing its own fees and costs.
Three atomizer patents, two years of litigation, one stipulated exit
Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd., a leading Chinese vaporizer manufacturer, filed this infringement action on October 19, 2022 in the Central District of California against Greentank Technologies Corp., a Canadian-founded vaping hardware company. The complaint asserted three patents: design patent USD0853635S and utility patents US10791762B2 and US10791763B2, all directed at atomizer assemblies for electronic cigarettes, including technology preventing liquid leakage caused by air pressure inside a liquid reservoir.
The case closed on December 30, 2024, via a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), dismissing all of Smoore’s claims against Greentank without prejudice. No merits ruling was issued. The without-prejudice designation means Smoore retains the right to refile on these patents, while the mutual cost-bearing arrangement suggests neither side secured a clear litigation victory or extracted a settlement payment that would typically shift fees.
The 803-day duration before a stipulated dismissal is notable — it suggests the parties engaged in substantial pre-trial proceedings before agreeing to exit. What drove the resolution remains unknown from the public record: possibilities include a commercial licensing arrangement reached privately, a product design-around by Greentank, or a strategic decision by Smoore to conserve litigation resources. The without-prejudice dismissal leaves the patent enforcement posture open, making this case worth monitoring for any refiling.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 803 days
803 days — longer than the median C.D. Cal. patent case before resolution
Dismissed without prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): a consent dismissal, not a court decision
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a signed stipulation from all parties and takes effect without a court order. Critically, the court never ruled on the merits of infringement, validity, or damages. The without-prejudice designation preserves Smoore’s right to refile these same claims in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitation.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice keeps Smoore’s enforcement options alive
A without-prejudice dismissal is materially different from one with prejudice. With prejudice would bar Smoore from ever reasserting these patents against Greentank for the same conduct. Without prejudice imposes no such bar — Smoore could refile if it identifies new infringing products, if a licensing negotiation breaks down, or if commercial circumstances change. The mutual cost-bearing clause, however, suggests neither party conceded the other’s position.
Refiling remains possibleGreentank exits without admission or validity ruling
Greentank obtains a dismissal without any finding of infringement against it, and without the patents being adjudicated as valid or invalid. This is a practical reprieve, not a legal exoneration. Because no invalidity finding was made, Greentank cannot rely on this case as precedent if Smoore refiles. Greentank also avoids paying Smoore’s legal fees — but equally bears its own substantial costs from 803 days of defence.
No invalidity findingThree e-cigarette atomizer patents remain fully enforceable
Because no court ruled on validity or infringement, USD0853635S, US10791762B2, and US10791763B2 remain live enforcement tools for Smoore. Competitors in the vaping hardware space — particularly those manufacturing atomizer assemblies with liquid-leakage prevention features — cannot rely on this dismissal as a safe harbour. The unresolved status of these patents sustains litigation risk across the sector.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese vaporizer manufacturer — holder of USD0853635S, US10791762B2, US10791763B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Greentank Technologies Corp. | Company | Greentank Technologies Corp. — vaping hardware company accused of atomizer infringementSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chao Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Erik T. Koons | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joanna M. Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kiyotoki Natsume | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert L. Maier | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Theodore W. Chandler | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Crowell & Moring LLP | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Clark Gordon | Attorney | Counsel for Greentank Technologies Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David C Vondle | Attorney | Counsel for Greentank Technologies Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Greentank Technologies Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation expressly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), confirming this is a consent dismissal requiring no judicial finding on infringement, validity, or damages. The without-prejudice qualifier is the operative term: it forecloses neither Smoore’s right to refile nor any future invalidity challenge by Greentank. The mutual fee-bearing clause is commercially neutral and consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a concession by either party. The three asserted patents exit this proceeding with their legal status entirely intact.
USD0853635S, US10791762B2 & US10791763B2 — E-cigarette Atomizer Technology
The three asserted patents cover complementary aspects of e-cigarette atomizer technology. USD0853635S (application US29/606450) protects the ornamental design of an atomizer, giving Smoore exclusive rights over its visual appearance. US10791762B2 (application US15/740657) addresses the functional challenge of preventing liquid leakage caused by air pressure inside a liquid reservoir — a persistent engineering problem in vaping hardware. US10791763B2 (application US15/953603) covers the electronic cigarette structure and the manufacturing method for its atomizing assembly, extending protection into production processes.
Together, these patents form a layered IP position that covers design, core functionality, and manufacturing — making it difficult for competitors to engineer around any single patent without potentially infringing another. For the vaping hardware sector, this portfolio is strategically significant: liquid-leakage prevention is a key product differentiator and quality marker. Any company developing or sourcing atomizer components with similar anti-leakage architecture — particularly those relying on air-pressure equalisation mechanisms — faces meaningful freedom-to-operate risk from this patent family.
Should you run an FTO against USD0853635S, US10791762B2 & US10791763B2?
If your R&D or product team is developing, sourcing, or commercialising e-cigarette atomizer assemblies — especially those incorporating liquid-leakage prevention features, air-pressure management in liquid reservoirs, or similar atomizing assembly manufacturing processes — these three Smoore patents warrant a formal freedom-to-operate analysis. The without-prejudice dismissal in this case provides no safe harbour: the patents remain fully in force and Smoore has demonstrated a willingness to litigate in the Central District of California.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10791762B2 and US10791763B2 against your product specifications, flag relevant prior art that could support an invalidity position, and identify design-around opportunities. For USD0853635S, Eureka’s design patent comparison tools can assess ornamental similarity risk. Running a structured FTO now — before product launch or a supply agreement is signed — is substantially cheaper than defending an infringement action in C.D. Cal.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0853635S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar e-cigarette atomizer patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable infringement actions involving e-cigarette and vaping hardware patents litigated in the Central District of California and other U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the e-cigarette atomizer IP landscape
Smoore’s willingness to litigate for over two years before a no-merits exit underscores the strategic weight of its atomizer patent portfolio.
Without-prejudice exits leave patent risk permanently open
This dismissal does not resolve the underlying IP dispute. Any company operating in the e-cigarette atomizer space — particularly those making liquid-leakage prevention assemblies — should treat Smoore’s three patents as active threats. A without-prejudice exit can precede a refiling if commercial dynamics shift or licensing talks collapse.
Dual design and utility patents create a layered enforcement strategy
Smoore asserted both a design patent (USD0853635S) and two utility patents (US10791762B2, US10791763B2). This combination is tactically significant: design patents can block visual copying while utility patents cover functional implementation. Competitors must clear both tracks independently, raising the cost and complexity of any design-around.
Shenzhen v Greentank — key questions answered
The court did not issue a merits decision. All claims were dismissed without prejudice by joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on December 30, 2024. No findings on infringement, validity, or damages were made. Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
Smoore asserted three patents: design patent USD0853635S (covering atomizer ornamental design), US10791762B2 (atomizer with liquid-leakage prevention via air-pressure control), and US10791763B2 (electronic cigarette structure and atomizing assembly manufacturing method). All three patents remain in force following the dismissal.
A without-prejudice dismissal means Smoore retains the right to refile infringement claims based on the same patents against Greentank or other parties in the future. The patents’ validity and enforceability were not adjudicated, so no estoppel or res judicata bars apply. This is materially different from a with-prejudice dismissal, which would permanently bar the same claims.
The public record does not disclose the specific reason for the 803-day duration before the stipulated dismissal. The timeline is consistent with the parties completing substantial discovery and claim construction proceedings before reaching a resolution. Possible explanations include a private licensing agreement, a Greentank product redesign, or a strategic decision to conserve resources — none of which is confirmed by the public docket.
No. The dismissal provides no freedom-to-operate protection for third parties. Because no court ruled on validity or infringement, USD0853635S, US10791762B2, and US10791763B2 remain fully enforceable. Companies developing e-cigarette atomizer assemblies with liquid-leakage prevention or similar air-pressure management features should conduct independent FTO analysis against these patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.