VPR Brands v. Ashh Inc.: 510 Thread Atomizer Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
VPR Brands, LP filed suit against Ashh, Inc. in Michigan’s Eastern District alleging infringement of US8205622B2, a patent covering 510 thread atomizer technology central to electronic cigarettes including the Ashh MoveZ and Ashh Pen. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal after 307 days — VPR’s claims dismissed with prejudice, Ashh’s counterclaims without prejudice.
E-cigarette atomizer patent fight ends in stipulated split dismissal
VPR Brands, LP — an electronic cigarette company and holder of US8205622B2, a patent directed to 510 thread atomizer technology — filed suit against Ashh, Inc. in the Eastern District of Michigan on August 20, 2024. The complaint alleged that Ashh’s products, specifically the Ashh MoveZ and Ashh Pen, infringed VPR’s patented atomizer design used in its own electronic cigarette line. The 510 thread standard is widely used across the vaping industry, making atomizer IP particularly commercially significant.
The case resolved on June 23, 2025, through a stipulated dismissal entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Under the agreed terms, VPR Brands’ infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice — meaning VPR cannot re-file the same claims against Ashh — while Ashh’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Ashh’s right to re-assert those claims in future proceedings. Each party agreed to bear its own legal costs and attorneys’ fees.
At 307 days, the case closed relatively quickly for patent litigation, suggesting the parties likely reached a negotiated resolution — whether a licensing agreement, covenant not to sue, or commercial settlement — before the matter progressed to substantive claim construction or trial. The public record does not disclose the terms of any underlying commercial arrangement. The asymmetric dismissal structure — with prejudice for plaintiff, without prejudice for defendant’s counterclaims — is a notable feature that warrants attention for industry participants monitoring VPR’s enforcement posture.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 307 days
307 days from filing to closure — faster than the median E.D. Mich. patent case
Stipulated split dismissal: what the asymmetric terms mean for each party
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal — with and without prejudice, simultaneously
The parties invoked Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows both parties, once an answer or motion for summary judgment has been filed, to dismiss by joint stipulation without a court order. Critically, the stipulation here is asymmetric: VPR’s claims are dismissed with prejudice (a final adjudication on the merits bar), while Ashh’s counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice (preserving Ashh’s right to re-file). This split structure is legally permissible and often reflects a negotiated commercial outcome.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulationVPR Brands cannot re-file these claims against Ashh
Dismissal with prejudice of VPR’s claims operates as a final judgment on the merits under res judicata principles. VPR Brands is permanently barred from asserting the same US8205622B2 infringement claims against Ashh’s accused products in any future action. This outcome typically signals either that VPR obtained what it sought (e.g. a licence or commercial agreement) or that the parties agreed to exit the dispute on these terms. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms.
Claims barred — cannot re-fileAshh’s counterclaims survive — preserved for future use
Ashh, Inc.’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Ashh retains the right to re-assert them in a subsequent proceeding. In patent cases, defendant counterclaims frequently include invalidity challenges or declarations of non-infringement. The without-prejudice dismissal leaves those claims alive — a meaningful strategic reserve. If VPR pursues enforcement against other parties using similar technology, Ashh’s preserved counterclaims could resurface as a litigation asset.
Counterclaims preserved510 thread atomizer IP remains enforceable — but enforcement limits apply
US8205622B2 remains in force and VPR Brands retains the right to enforce it against third parties in the e-cigarette and vaping sector. However, the with-prejudice dismissal as to Ashh specifically signals a resolution of VPR’s claims against that defendant. Companies operating in the 510 thread atomizer space — including manufacturers of compatible cartridges, pens, and modular vaping devices — should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and assess freedom-to-operate accordingly.
Patent still enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VPR Brands, LP | Company | Electronic cigarette company — holder of US8205622B2 covering 510 thread atomizer technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ashh, Inc. | Company | Ashh, Inc. — vaping product maker, producer of the Ashh MoveZ and Ashh Pen devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joel Benjamin Rothman | Attorney | Counsel for VPR Brands, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph A. Dunne | Attorney | Counsel for VPR Brands, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sriplaw, PA | Law Firm | Representing VPR Brands, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard W. Hoffmann | Attorney | Counsel for Ashh, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Reising, Ethington PC | Law Firm | Representing Ashh, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Michigan Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s asymmetric structure is legally precise: VPR’s claims dismissed ‘with prejudice’ invokes a res judicata bar, while Ashh’s counterclaims dismissed ‘without prejudice’ preserves Ashh’s right to re-assert those claims. The fee-bearing clause — each party bears its own costs — suggests neither side extracted a cost award, consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a contested adjudication. The absence of any merits ruling means US8205622B2’s validity was never adjudicated in this proceeding.
US8205622B2 — 510 Thread Atomizer for Electronic Cigarettes
US8205622B2, filed under application number US12/437511, protects 510 thread atomizer technology — the interface standard connecting atomizer cartridges to electronic cigarette batteries. The 510 thread connection has become the dominant form factor in the vaping industry, used across a wide range of consumer devices from pen-style e-cigarettes to modular vaping platforms. VPR Brands’ patent on this interface technology places it in a strategically significant position within the e-cigarette supply chain.
For competitors and product manufacturers in the vaping sector, US8205622B2 represents a meaningful IP barrier. The 510 thread standard’s near-universal adoption means that a valid, enforceable patent on core atomizer interface technology could implicate a broad range of devices — including third-party cartridges, pens, and modular systems designed for 510 compatibility. VPR’s demonstrated willingness to enforce this patent in federal court, as evidenced by this and potentially other actions, elevates the strategic importance of FTO clearance for any company commercialising 510-thread-compatible hardware.
Should your 510 thread atomizer product be cleared against US8205622B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing 510-thread-compatible vaping hardware — including atomizer cartridges, battery pens, pod systems, and modular devices — should assess freedom-to-operate against US8205622B2 before commercialisation. VPR Brands has demonstrated active enforcement of this patent in U.S. district court, and the patent’s core technology is foundational to a widely used industry interface standard. Early FTO clearance is significantly less costly than defending a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Michigan.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US8205622B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may support design-arounds or invalidity arguments, and surface related VPR Brands patents that may present additional risk. Eureka’s citation graph also enables rapid identification of other litigation involving this patent or closely related atomizer IP — critical intelligence for product teams and IP counsel making commercialisation decisions in the vaping hardware sector.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8205622B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 510 thread atomizer and e-cigarette patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving 510 thread atomizer and electronic cigarette patents litigated in U.S. district courts, including other VPR Brands enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the e-cigarette atomizer IP landscape
VPR Brands’ enforcement of 510 thread atomizer IP in Michigan signals active patent assertion in the vaping sector. Industry participants should take note.
VPR Brands is an active enforcer of 510 thread atomizer IP
This action demonstrates VPR Brands’ willingness to litigate US8205622B2 against competing vaping product makers. Companies selling 510-thread-compatible devices — atomizers, cartridges, pens — should treat VPR’s patent portfolio as a live enforcement risk and conduct FTO analysis before commercialising products in this space.
Asymmetric dismissal terms reward careful negotiation at case exit
The split dismissal structure — plaintiff with prejudice, defendant counterclaims without prejudice — is a sophisticated outcome that requires careful negotiation. Defendants in patent suits should resist agreeing to mutual with-prejudice dismissals without understanding what they surrender, particularly where invalidity counterclaims have been filed.
VPR v Ashh — key questions answered
The case was dismissed by stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). VPR Brands’ infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, barring re-filing against Ashh. Ashh’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Ashh’s right to re-assert them. Each party bore its own costs and attorneys’ fees. No merits ruling on US8205622B2 was issued.
US8205622B2, filed as application US12/437511, covers 510 thread atomizer technology — the interface standard connecting atomizer cartridges to e-cigarette batteries. The 510 thread is the dominant connection standard in the vaping industry, meaning this patent potentially implicates a wide range of compatible devices. VPR Brands has used it as the basis for infringement actions in U.S. federal courts.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits under res judicata principles. VPR Brands is permanently barred from re-filing the same US8205622B2 infringement claims against Ashh, Inc. and the accused products — the Ashh MoveZ, Ashh Pen, and related devices — in any subsequent federal court action.
This asymmetric structure was agreed by both parties in the stipulation and is legally permissible under Rule 41. It typically reflects negotiated terms: VPR agreed to a permanent bar on its claims, while Ashh preserved its counterclaims — which may include invalidity challenges to US8205622B2 — for potential future use. The public record does not disclose any underlying commercial or licensing terms that may have driven this arrangement.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Case No. 4:24-cv-12190). VPR Brands was represented by Joel Benjamin Rothman and Joseph A. Dunne of Sriplaw, PA. Ashh, Inc. was represented by Richard W. Hoffmann of Reising Ethington PC, a Michigan-based IP law firm.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.