Smoore v. Next Level Ventures: E-Cigarette Atomizer Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd. brought a four-patent infringement action against Next Level Ventures, LLC and Advanced Vapor Devices, LLC in the Central District of California, asserting design and utility patents covering leak-preventing atomizer technology for electronic cigarettes. After 946 days of litigation, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, each bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
A Contested Atomizer Patent War Ends Quietly by Mutual Agreement
On October 19, 2022, Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd. — one of the world’s largest vaping hardware manufacturers — filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Next Level Ventures, LLC and Advanced Vapor Devices, LLC. The complaint asserted four patents: two design patents (USD0823534S and USD0853635S) and two utility patents (US10791762B2 and US10791763B2), all directed at atomizer technology for electronic cigarettes, including innovations relating to leak prevention caused by air inside liquid reservoirs.
The case closed on May 22, 2025, when both sides filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All claims by Smoore and all counterclaims by Next Level Ventures were terminated simultaneously. Crucially, the stipulation specifies that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs, suggesting a negotiated exit rather than a one-sided capitulation. A dismissal with prejudice extinguishes the dismissed claims permanently — Smoore cannot re-file these same infringement allegations against Next Level Ventures on these patents.
At 946 days, the case ran well beyond the typical early-exit window, suggesting the parties engaged in substantive litigation — potentially including claim construction, discovery, or parallel IPR proceedings — before reaching resolution. The public record is silent on whether a private settlement agreement or license underpins the dismissal; such arrangements are common in the vaping hardware space where Chinese manufacturers increasingly assert IP offensively in U.S. courts. What drove the resolution, and on what commercial terms, remains unknown from the docket.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 946 days
946 days — over 2.5 years, longer than the median C.D. Cal. patent case to resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): a binding, final exit by mutual consent
A joint stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared. Once filed, it takes effect immediately without court order. Critically, the ‘with prejudice’ designation means the dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits — Smoore is permanently barred from re-asserting these four patents against Next Level Ventures on the same claims. This is the highest-finality voluntary exit available at the district court level.
Permanent bar on re-filingSmoore relinquishes the right to re-sue on these patents against NLV
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Smoore accepts a permanent foreclosure of these specific infringement claims against Next Level Ventures. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against third parties — the dismissal binds only the parties to this action. If a confidential settlement or license was negotiated (not visible on the public docket), Smoore may have secured commercial value despite the apparent concession in the legal record.
Patents survive vs. third partiesNLV and Advanced Vapor Devices obtain permanent immunity from these claims
Next Level Ventures and Advanced Vapor Devices achieve dismissal with prejudice, meaning Smoore cannot revive these specific patent claims against them. All counterclaims asserted by NLV are also dismissed with prejudice, so neither side retains any live dispute from this action. The ‘each party bears own costs’ provision means defendants avoided a fee-shifting outcome, though the cost of nearly three years of litigation with Dentons and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner counsel is substantial regardless.
Counterclaims also extinguishedSmoore’s U.S. patent enforcement posture in vaping hardware remains active
This dismissal does not signal patent weakness — Smoore’s atomizer design and utility patents remain live assets. The case demonstrates willingness by Chinese vaping hardware innovators to enforce design and utility IP aggressively in U.S. federal courts, a trend that raises the stakes for domestic vaping brands sourcing or developing competing atomizer technology. Companies in the e-cigarette and vaping device sector should treat Smoore’s portfolio — particularly leak-prevention and atomizer assembly patents — as active enforcement risks.
Portfolio remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Global vaping hardware manufacturer — holder of USD0823534S, USD0853635S, US10791762B2, US10791763B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Next Level Ventures, LLC | Company | U.S.-based vaping ventures entity; co-defendant Advanced Vapor Devices, LLC also namedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Advanced Vapor Devices, LLC | Company | Search 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 | Evan J. Werbel | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason L. Liang | 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 | Kristin M. Barkemeyer | 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 counsel | Thomas E. Carter | 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 ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Liang Ly LLP | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander D Walden | Attorney | Counsel for Next Level Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bety Javidzad | Attorney | Counsel for Next Level Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Charles E Tompkins | Attorney | Counsel for Next Level Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Darren E Ray | Attorney | Counsel for Next Level Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erin A. Kelly | Attorney | Counsel for Next Level Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Evan P Boyle | Attorney | Counsel for Next Level Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jasdeep Atwal | Attorney | Counsel for Next Level Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph J. Richetti | Attorney | Counsel for Next Level Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kristin Suzanne Webb | Attorney | Counsel for Next Level Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nah Eun Kim | Attorney | Counsel for Next Level Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas H. Jackson | Attorney | Counsel for Next Level Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | R. Tyler Goodwyn , IV | Attorney | Counsel for Next Level Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Scott W. Cummings | Attorney | Counsel for Next Level Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Song K Jung | Attorney | Counsel for Next Level Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP | Law Firm | Representing Next Level Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dentons US LLP | Law Firm | Representing Next Level Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation is carefully worded to achieve full bilateral finality: all claims and all counterclaims are dismissed simultaneously, with prejudice, under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The equal cost allocation — each party bearing its own fees — is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than one side conceding defeat. The stipulation makes no reference to any license, royalty, or commercial arrangement, which is standard practice when parties wish to keep settlement terms confidential. The practical effect is that neither party retains any live legal claim arising from this dispute.
USD0823534S, USD0853635S, US10791762B2 & US10791763B2 — E-Cigarette Atomizer Patents
The four patents span both design and utility protection for electronic cigarette atomizer technology. The two design patents (USD0823534S and USD0853635S), filed under application numbers US29/606439 and US29/606450, protect the ornamental appearance of Smoore’s atomizer units — a form of IP that covers the visual design of a product independently of how it functions. The two utility patents (US10791762B2 and US10791763B2), filed under US15/740657 and US15/953603, protect functional innovations: specifically, atomizer structures engineered to prevent liquid leakage caused by air pressure dynamics inside the liquid reservoir, and methods for manufacturing the atomizing assembly of an electronic cigarette.
Smoore’s decision to assert both design and utility patents reflects a layered IP enforcement strategy that is increasingly common among leading vaping hardware manufacturers. The leak-prevention utility claims address one of the most persistent engineering challenges in pod and cartridge-based vaping systems, suggesting the patents may read on a broad range of competing products. For any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing atomizer hardware in the U.S. market — particularly those competing in the pod-system or disposable device segment — these patents represent a non-trivial clearance obligation. Smoore’s standing as a global OEM supplier also raises the possibility that these patents could be asserted against brand owners whose devices are manufactured using competing atomizer designs.
Should you run an FTO against Smoore’s atomizer patents?
Any company developing, importing, or commercialising electronic cigarette atomizers or pod-system vaping devices in the United States should treat Smoore’s utility patent family — particularly US10791762B2 and US10791763B2 — as priority FTO targets. The leak-prevention claim architecture is broad enough to potentially read on standard pod and cartridge designs. The design patents (USD0823534S, USD0853635S) are equally relevant for product teams: if your atomizer’s visual form factor resembles Smoore’s protected designs, a design patent clearance review is essential before U.S. launch or distribution.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the independent and dependent claims of US10791762B2 and US10791763B2, identify prosecution history estoppel, and surface related family members filed in other jurisdictions. For the design patents, Eureka’s visual claim analysis can flag ornamental similarity risks. Running a proactive FTO now — before a cease-and-desist letter or ITC complaint — is significantly more cost-effective than defending a C.D. Cal. infringement action of the kind Smoore demonstrated willingness to sustain for nearly three years.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0823534S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar e-cigarette atomizer patent cases in U.S. federal courts
These cases involve comparable electronic cigarette or vaping device patent disputes litigated at the district court level, including C.D. Cal. infringement actions.
What this case signals for the vaping hardware IP landscape
Smoore’s assertive U.S. litigation strategy and the finality of this dismissal carry clear implications for the broader e-cigarette patent market.
Chinese vaping OEMs are using U.S. courts as an IP enforcement tool
Smoore’s willingness to litigate for nearly three years in the Central District of California signals a maturing enforcement posture among major Chinese vaping hardware manufacturers. U.S. brands and distributors that source or compete with atomizer technology should expect continued offensive patent activity from Asia-based OEM patent holders.
Design patents on vaping hardware carry real litigation weight
Two of the four asserted patents are design patents (USD0823534S, USD0853635S), confirming that aesthetic and form-factor IP — not just utility claims — is being weaponised in this sector. Product designers and industrial engineers at vaping companies should conduct design patent clearance alongside traditional utility FTO analysis.
Shenzhen v Next — key questions answered
The case was a patent infringement action filed by Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd. against Next Level Ventures, LLC and Advanced Vapor Devices, LLC in the Central District of California. Smoore asserted four patents — two design patents (USD0823534S, USD0853635S) and two utility patents (US10791762B2, US10791763B2) — covering electronic cigarette atomizer technology, including leak-prevention innovations and atomizing assembly manufacturing methods.
The case was resolved by a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), filed May 22, 2025. Dismissed with prejudice means the dismissal operates as a final adjudication — Smoore is permanently barred from re-filing the same patent infringement claims against Next Level Ventures. All counterclaims were also dismissed with prejudice. Each party bears its own legal costs.
Yes. A dismissal with prejudice in this action binds only the parties to this specific case. Smoore’s four asserted patents — USD0823534S, USD0853635S, US10791762B2, and US10791763B2 — remain valid and enforceable against third parties. The dismissal does not constitute an invalidation or disclaimer of any patent claims.
US10791762B2, filed under application US15/740657, is directed at an atomizer capable of preventing liquid leakage caused by air inside a liquid reservoir, and an electronic cigarette incorporating that atomizer. US10791763B2, filed under US15/953603, covers an electronic cigarette and a method for manufacturing the atomizing assembly thereof. Both patents address core engineering challenges in pod-system and cartridge-based vaping devices.
The public docket does not reveal the specific litigation events that prolonged the case to 946 days, which is notably longer than the median C.D. Cal. patent case. Cases of this duration typically involve substantive contested proceedings such as claim construction hearings, discovery disputes, expert reports, or parallel USPTO inter partes review petitions. The equal cost allocation in the final stipulation suggests neither party emerged with a decisive legal advantage, consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.