SO a USA patent for ECIGS has now been issued to Hon Lick the inventor of the ecig , they have contacted several larger companies in regards to violation of this US patent .
Hon Lick USA patent issued !! on the ECIG
- Thread starter BuzzKill
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Hmm I thought that you could only get lawyers to go after company's for patent violations if they did so after you filed for the patent, not if they did it beforehand.
I question the scientific accuracy of some of the statements in the Patent document. Specifically, on page 8, “…nicotine then produces its effect on the receptors of the smoker’s central nervous system, which makes him/her relax and enjoy an inebriety similar to that produced by an exhilarant.”
I feel cheated. I have never enjoyed an inebriety when using nicotine. Dr. John Hughes stated that euphoria is rarely reported by smokers, affecting less than 10% of smokers.
Also: “The major harmful subsatance (sic) in tobacco is tar, tar in tobacco is composed of thousands of ingredients, tens of which are carcinogenic substances.”
I’d buy this if it said that tar was a harmful ingredient in smoke. It is my understanding that unburned tobacco does not contain tar. Tar is produced by combustion.
“At present it has been proven that passive smoking can be more harmful to non-smokers.”
More harmful than what? More harmful to non-smokers than to smokers?
I feel cheated. I have never enjoyed an inebriety when using nicotine. Dr. John Hughes stated that euphoria is rarely reported by smokers, affecting less than 10% of smokers.
Also: “The major harmful subsatance (sic) in tobacco is tar, tar in tobacco is composed of thousands of ingredients, tens of which are carcinogenic substances.”
I’d buy this if it said that tar was a harmful ingredient in smoke. It is my understanding that unburned tobacco does not contain tar. Tar is produced by combustion.
“At present it has been proven that passive smoking can be more harmful to non-smokers.”
More harmful than what? More harmful to non-smokers than to smokers?
It wouldn't if the resellers are not the manufactures.
Now if I owned a US based e cigg company and had an plant building to my design for resale in the US. With my name on it
And if that design violated some ones US patent that's another story.
US patents can be tricky things, I could take the above patent and make some changes
Then claim that my design is different.
Now if I owned a US based e cigg company and had an plant building to my design for resale in the US. With my name on it
And if that design violated some ones US patent that's another story.
US patents can be tricky things, I could take the above patent and make some changes
Then claim that my design is different.
Last edited:
The device that was patented seems rather sophisticated- description is that it has a juice bottle of sorts in it. Is this an upgrade of what was first put out? Or , is that what they look like internally?
I posted in the other section of the forum that also made this announcement, but in their patent, they claim it's a smoking cessation device- that was interesting to me. Wasn't that what the FDA tried to ban them as to begin with? Strange that the U.S. Gov. granted the patent, just on that condition.
I posted in the other section of the forum that also made this announcement, but in their patent, they claim it's a smoking cessation device- that was interesting to me. Wasn't that what the FDA tried to ban them as to begin with? Strange that the U.S. Gov. granted the patent, just on that condition.
Any of the claims that are violated can be enforced by them , this is a WIDE patent and covers lots of things , I need to read it fully to get a better idea on what exactly it does cover.
This is interesting. I wonder when the patent application was submitted. Wouldn't that limit protection against the devices that were sold before the patent application was presented, but allow Hon Lic to obtain cease and desist orders against those selling ecigs that conformed to the patent once it was approved? If I were him, I'd allow them to sell all they wanted, but require licensing and royalty payments. This would be instant money, continued income, and with some back pay included. Make them stop? Not at all! I'd just hold out my hand and enjoy life.
I did read somwhere about 6 months ago that second hand smoke is more harmful than the actual smoke that the smoker is consuming. I re-read it for the same reason.
I think most current manufacturers of APVs are going to be fine. The patent is pretty darn specific about components and their arrangement... so unless you have a similar design created (and marketed) after the patent date, then you MAY be liable. IMO, anyway.
Maybe it's true but smelling food doesn't make you fat ... eating it is another story. I think non-smokers can have allergies to cigarette smoke and in some cases, develop actual illnesses from being in smoky rooms on a daily basis, but I'm not so sure that casual inhalation is worse than purposeful inhalation. They do get theirs without the benefit of the smoke passing through a filter or a tube of tobacco, but the smoker gets exposed to smoke from both ends of the tube right off the burning coal before it has a chance to dissipate.
Am I missing something here? I carefully read through the description, and what they've patented is a device which uses high frequency (ultrasound) to vaporize the nicotine solution.
It doesn't look to me like normal PVs currently available infringe this patent, insofar as they all rely on a heated wire or coil to vaporize the e-liquid.
It doesn't look to me like normal PVs currently available infringe this patent, insofar as they all rely on a heated wire or coil to vaporize the e-liquid.
I have to read it closer but I think it covers BOTH coil and piezo/ultrasound to vaporize !
Like I said :" I think " I will make some time to fully read it later , DISCLAIMER I am NOT a PATENT LAWYER ! this is all My opinion.
BTW IF the patent had a Published patent pending release then the MFG can be liable from the date of that publication not the patent release date . FYI
Last edited:
Neither am I, BuzzKill. Hopefully someone acquainted with patent law will wander by and enlighten us.
See, that's a double edged sword in my opinion- current APV makers may be okay but then the FDA is bound to say that Hon Lick's design was the "original" one that gets grand-fathered in (pre-2007) and those that come after it are "not the same." Hmmmm.....
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
