The 2009 case was centered on intended use. The FDA claimed ecigs where a drug delivery device because they claimed some manufactures where claiming you could quit smoking with ecigs, essentially the same as NRT's, or so the FDA claimed.
The defense was that the intended use was that of a recreational way of using nicotine (which is the truth). The defense didn't claim they are a
tobacco product, simply that the intended use was not a smoking cessation product.
Near the end of the case the
tobacco control act passed, and judge Leon told the FDA that it was possible ecigs could be regulated under the then new law (as if the FDA would not have figured this out on there own).
Bottom line is that the 2009 case has nothing to do with the current deeming, though the idea has floated around for awhile by people who don't have an understanding of the history of the case and the
tobacco control act. The deeming has everything to do with the tobacco control act and the case the FDA lost in 2010
has nothing to do with it.