Weaponized Litigation and Patent Misdirection
But the alleged conspiracy didn’t stop at price controls. Redbud says Smoore took a page from a corporate thriller, using litigation as a sword rather than a shield. Specifically, Smoore is accused of filing a baseless complaint at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in 2021, claiming that competitors infringed on three U.S. patents.
The catch? According to Redbud’s suit, Chief Administrative Law Judge Clark S. Cheney later found that many of the claims were unfounded, and one patent had been fraudulently obtained—a damning assertion in the high-stakes world of intellectual property.
Despite the judge’s findings, Smoore allegedly accomplished what it set out to do: drive competitors out of the market. Some settled, others signed consent orders. A few, Redbud claims, even agreed to stop competing entirely—effectively cementing the dominance of the alleged cartel.
Legal Claims and Industry Fallout
In its complaint, Redbud accuses the defendants of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act and is seeking treble damages, restitution, and a court-ordered injunction to halt further anti-competitive behavior.
The company is represented by Christopher L. Lebsock of Hausfeld LLP, a firm known for handling high-profile antitrust litigation.
The lawsuit lands at a time when the cannabis vaporizer market is booming but still maturing—a perfect storm for consolidation and coercive tactics. As Redbud’s legal battle unfolds, it could become a bellwether case for how competition law intersects with the explosive growth of cannabis tech.
Representatives for the defendants, as well as their legal counsel, were not immediately available for comment Friday.
In a rapidly evolving industry where innovation is key and barriers to entry remain steep, this lawsuit could either dismantle a secretive stronghold—or spark deeper questions about how competition truly functions in the vapor cloud of modern cannabis commerce.
