U.S. ITC Finds Patent Violation in Oil Vaporizing Devices Case; Issues Orders Against STIIIZY and ALD

Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes

On January 23, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) published its final determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-1392. The case involves oil vaporizing devices, their parts, and products containing these parts.

The Commission found violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The violations relate to the unlicensed importation and sale of oil vaporizing products that infringe several U.S. patents.

The Commission issued a Limited Exclusion Order (LEO). This order blocks unlicensed entry of the infringing products made or imported by the companies named in the complaint. The Commission also issued Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) against STIIIZY.

The investigation began on March 6, 2024. The complaint was filed by the patent holder. It alleged that STIIIZY IP LLC (formerly STIIIZY, LLC), STIIIZY, Inc. (doing business as Shryne Group Inc.), ALD Group Limited, and ALD Hong Kong Holdings imported and sold products that violated four patents:

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,369,756 (“the ‘756 patent”)
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,766,527 (“the ‘527 patent”)
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,369,757 (“the ‘757 patent”)
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,759,580 (“the ‘580 patent”)

Initially, the ALJ found that the STIIIZY and ALD products infringed many of the patented claims. However, the ALJ concluded that the complainant failed to meet the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.

The Commission reviewed and reversed several of the ALJ’s findings. It ruled that the complainant met both the technical and economic parts of the domestic industry requirement.

A key Commission finding was that pre-patent issuance investments can be counted under Section 337(a)(3), as long as those investments were related to the patented products.

The products named as infringing include:

  • STIIIZY-LIIIL
  • STIIIZY-1G(C)
  • STIIIZY-ORIG-1
  • STIIIZY-AIO
  • FLARE(C)
  • FLARE(V)
  • ROVE(C)
  • ROVE(V)
  • STIIIZY-1G-REDESIGN(C)
  • STIIIZY-ORIG-1G-REDESIGN
  • STIIIZY-AIO-REDESIGN

Several product redesigns by STIIIZY and ALD were also found to infringe under the doctrine of equivalents.

The Commission confirmed that none of the patents were found invalid under Sections 102, 103, or 112 of Title 35 of the U.S. Code.

Public comments were received during the review process, including submissions from Professor William J. McNichol, Jr. of Rutgers Law School.

Following review, the Commission found that public interest factors did not weigh against issuing the LEO and CDOs. It also set a bond of 100% of the value of the infringing imports during the 60-day Presidential review period.

The investigation is now closed.

The Commission’s decision was based on the full record, including the initial determination, petitions for review, and public submissions.

For more details, the official documentation can be accessed through the Commission’s website at www.usitc.gov.


Legal Disclaimer

This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.