AJ Marketing Sues Juul on a 2014 Inhalation-Device Patent. It Wants Royalties, Not a Ban.

One patent, one count. U.S. Patent 8,851,068 is asserted against Juul 1 and Juul2. The prayer asks for reasonable and ongoing royalties, enhanced damages, and fees. It does not ask for an injunction.

On September 3, 2026, AJ Marketing, LLC sued Juul Labs, Inc. in the District of Delaware, No. 1:26-cv-01110-UNA. The complaint is on RECAP. The judge is unassigned. AJ Marketing is pleaded as a South Dakota LLC and the sole owner of U.S. Patent 8,851,068 B2, titled "Personal Inhalation Devices," issued October 7, 2014. Juul Labs is pleaded as a Delaware corporation. A jury is demanded.

What is accused

Count I alleges direct, induced, and contributory infringement of at least independent claim 1, plus willfulness. The accused products are the Juul Device ("Juul 1"), including model numbers JU288U8W and J6WDRF85, sold with JUULpods, and the Juul2 Device. The complaint says Juul2 has been made, used, and imported for development, testing, demonstration, and regulatory work, including PMTA activity, and that Juul2 has not been offered for retail sale in the United States.

The alleged invention

As pleaded, the '068 patent covers personal inhalation devices with programmable metering and control electronics and a light-pipe indicator architecture. Inventors named are Scott A. Cohen and Michael J. Bedecs. The complaint claims 646 days of patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b). Those are the patentee's characterizations, not findings.

Relief sought

The prayer seeks a judgment of infringement and willfulness, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for the six-year window under section 286, an ongoing royalty through patent expiration (as extended by PTA), enhanced damages up to threefold, exceptional-case fees under section 285, accounting, interest, and costs. It does not plead a preliminary or permanent injunction. Counsel of record are Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan of Farnan LLP, with Burns Charest LLP as proposed pro hac vice counsel.

What it means in practice

This is a money case, not a sales-ban case, on the face of the complaint. Timing matters for Juul2: the filing lands days after reported FDA authorization of that platform, but the complaint itself focuses on development and regulatory use rather than U.S. retail sales. Validity and claim construction are untested.

What to watch next

Judge assignment, Juul's answer or Rule 12 motion, and whether Juul2 U.S. commercial launch changes the damages picture or prompts an amended prayer.