Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1060 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 29432
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`v.
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. and
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USA INC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTS S.A.,
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REYNOLDS’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE
`ARGUMENT, EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY REGARDING REYNOLDS NOT
`OBTAINING OR RELYING ON AN OPINION OF COUNSEL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1060 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID# 29433
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................................4
`
`Carson Optical Inc. v. eBay Inc.,
`202 F. Supp. 3d 247 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ...................................................................................1, 4
`
`Dentsply Sirona Inc. v. Edge Endo,
`LLC, No. 1:17CV1041-JFB-SCY, 2020 WL 6392764 (D.N.M. Nov. 2, 2020) .......................3
`
`DSM IP Assets, B.V. v. Lallemand Specialties, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-497-wmc, 2018 WL 1937660 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 24, 2018) .......................................2
`
`Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.,
`281 F. Supp. 3d 1087 (D. Nev. 2017) ........................................................................................4
`
`Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.,
`No. 1:15-CV-1031, 2018 WL 3348998 (D. Del. July 9, 2018) .................................................1
`
`Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-07639 SJO-KS, 2020 WL 2844410 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020) ...............................2
`
`LifeNet Health v. LifeCell Corp.,
`No. 2:13CV486, 2014 WL 5529679 (E.D. Va. Oct. 31, 2014) .............................................1, 4
`
`Mass Engineered Design, Inc. v. SpaceCo Bus. Sols., Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-01904-RM-MJW, 2017 WL 4334075 (D. Colo. May 2, 2017) ................................1
`
`Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Snap-On Inc.,
`288 F. Supp. 3d 872 (E.D. Wis. 2017) .......................................................................................4
`
`Omega Pats., LLC v. CalAmp Corp.,
`920 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................3
`
`Pacific Biosciences of Cal., Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Techs., Inc.,
`No. CV 17-275-LPS-CJB, 2020 WL 954938 (D. Del. Feb. 27, 2020) ......................................3
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1060 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID# 29434
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Sherwin-Williams Co. v. PPG Indus.,
`No. 17-1023, 2021 WL 1110568 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2021) .....................................................2
`
`Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Commc’ns, Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-346-bbc, 2014 WL 4976596 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 3, 2014) ..........................................1
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 298 ........................................................................................................................1, 3, 4
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1 (2011) ..................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1060 Filed 02/25/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID# 29435
`
`
`
`PM/Altria agrees that under 35 U.S.C. § 298 it cannot reference the lack of an opinion of
`
`counsel, unless Reynolds opens the door. Reynolds does not intend to rely on opinion of
`
`counsel, and therefore will not open the door. The only notable remaining issue between the
`
`parties is whether trial testimony of a good-faith belief of non-infringement (or invalidity),
`
`unrelated to advice of counsel, would be sufficient to open the door. It would not. PM/Altria
`
`has no authority to support its position, which is contrary to Section 298 itself. Reynolds’s
`
`Motion in Limine (“MIL”) 6 should be granted to exclude all argument, evidence, and testimony
`
`regarding Reynolds not obtaining or relying on opinion of counsel.
`
`Across the board, courts find door-opening only where the defendant relies on advice of
`
`counsel or so implies. See, e.g., Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Commc’ns, Inc., No. 13-CV-346-bbc,
`
`2014 WL 4976596, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 3, 2014) (finding that Section 298’s protection
`
`“dissolves in the event defendant[ ] ‘open[s] the door’ by attempting to refute a claim of willful
`
`infringement by implying that they relied on the advice of counsel”) (emphasis added); LifeNet
`
`Health v. LifeCell Corp., No. 2:13-cv-486, 2014 WL 5529679, at *6 (E.D. Va. Oct. 31, 2014)
`
`(same); Carson Optical Inc. v. eBay Inc., 202 F. Supp. 3d 247, 261 n.11 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)
`
`(allowing rebuttal if defendant’s testimony “rel[ies] on the advice of counsel”); Mass Engineered
`
`Design, Inc. v. SpaceCo Bus. Sols., Inc., No. 16-cv-01904-RM-MJW, 2017 WL 4334075, at *3
`
`(D. Colo. May 2, 2017) (finding “Defendant may through various means ‘open the door’ by
`
`implying that they relied on advice of counsel”); Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., No.
`
`1:15-CV-1031, 2018 WL 3348998, at *2 (D. Del. July 9, 2018) (Door-opening occurs if
`
`defendants “imply[] that they relied on the advice of counsel”). Even where the defendant has
`
`designated opinion of counsel as a trial exhibit, that alone does not open the door; the defendant
`
`must actually rely or imply opinion of counsel at trial. See, e.g., Hologic, 2018 WL 3348998,
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1060 Filed 02/25/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID# 29436
`
`
`at *2 (finding that designating opinion of counsel as exhibit and its counsel as trial witness not
`
`sufficient to open door without more); DSM IP Assets, B.V. v. Lallemand Specialties, Inc., No.
`
`16-cv-497-wmc, 2018 WL 1937660, at *18 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 24, 2018) (“[N]aming counsel as a
`
`trial witness does not [open the door], particularly since [defendant] represents” it will not
`
`introduce or suggest it sought advice of counsel.).1 Likewise here, there is no door-opening.
`
`Reynolds did not produce an advice of counsel, did not put opinion counsel on the witness list,
`
`and will not imply it sought or obtained advice of counsel.
`
`
`
`There is also no door-opening where the defendant raises evidence other than advice of
`
`counsel—such as its own good-faith belief it was not infringing. Defendants may put on good-
`
`faith testimony by a fact witness with relevant information about the defendant’s state of mind,
`
`while maintaining Section 298’s protections and the defendant’s privilege of opinion of counsel.
`
`See Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-07639 SJO-KS, 2020 WL
`
`2844410, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020) (holding that the defendant’s decision “to exercise
`
`privilege and not present an advice of counsel opinion” for defending against a willful
`
`infringement claim “did not preclude it from presenting fact testimony” regarding a good-faith
`
`belief of non-infringement or invalidity); Sherwin-Williams Co. v. PPG Indus., No. 17-1023,
`
`2021 WL 1110568, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2021) (defendant’s good-faith belief defense,
`
`shown even by attorney-drafted documents (court or patent filings), does not open the door).
`
`Notably, PM/Altria cites no case in which a good-faith belief by fact witnesses “opens the door.”
`
`
`
`
`1 The DSM opinion mistakenly states that the court denied, rather than granted, exclusion
`of evidence and argument regarding defendant’s lack of advice of counsel. See DSM IP Assets,
`B.V. v. Lallemand Specialties, Inc., No. 16-CV-497-WMC, ECF No. 232, at 43 (W.D. Wis.
`Apr. 25, 2018) (correcting the error: “It should have said is granted unless the defendant,
`Lallemand, opens the door by introducing evidence with regard to its consulting counsel.”).
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1060 Filed 02/25/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID# 29437
`
`
`
`Consistent with legal authority, Reynolds, through fact witnesses, may present a defense
`
`of good-faith belief of non-infringement or invalidity based on Reynolds’s views, without
`
`opening the door. For instance, when Reynolds’s scientist Dr. Figlar was asked whether he had
`
`“an opinion as to whether those five patents are infringed,” he opined that Reynolds does not
`
`infringe and that he reached this opinion “[b]y reading the patents and looking at the claims and
`
`knowing the difference between what is claimed in the patents and what our technology that we
`
`have in our products uses and, you know, my scientific opinion and my experience.” Dkt. 901,
`
`Ex. 18 (6/24/21 Figlar Dep.) at 10:1-13:10.
`
`PM/Altria claims that Dentsply Sirona Inc. v. Edge Endo, LLC, No. 1:17CV1041-JFB-
`
`SCY, 2020 WL 6392764 (D.N.M. Nov. 2, 2020), and Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v.
`
`Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc., No. CV 17-275-LPS-CJB, 2020 WL 954938 (D. Del. Feb.
`
`27, 2020), permit it to explore a lack of opinion of counsel with Reynolds’s witnesses. Dkt. 976
`
`(“Opp.”) at 2. This is incorrect. In Dentsply, the court found the defendant had opened the door
`
`by affirmatively using an opinion of counsel as part of its defense against willfulness. See 2020
`
`WL 6392764, at *5. In Pacific Biosciences, the plaintiff sought to preclude defendant from
`
`opening the door by implying it relied on advice of counsel. See 2020 WL 954938, at *1.
`
`Pacific Biosciences thus has no bearing on the present case.
`
`PM/Altria argues it is entitled to challenge the good-faith belief of Reynolds’s fact
`
`witnesses by asking whether the witness is a lawyer or sought “any competent opinion from
`
`counsel.” Opp. at 1-2. Not so. Such questions suggest Reynolds should have obtained an
`
`opinion of counsel—precisely the type of inquiry that Section 298 prohibits. PM/Altria’s
`
`questions would also improperly insinuate that only lawyers may give competent opinions on
`
`non-infringement. Lay witnesses can be competent to assess infringement and invalidity. See,
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1060 Filed 02/25/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID# 29438
`
`
`e.g., Omega Pats., LLC v. CalAmp Corp., 920 F.3d 1337, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (holding that a
`
`senior business director could testify as to defendant’s state of mind because he analyzed the
`
`patents and reported his findings to management); Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics,
`
`Inc., 281 F. Supp. 3d 1087, 1094 (D. Nev. 2017) (finding it reasonable for defendant to rely on
`
`opinion of engineer with 30 years’ experience).2
`
`By force of statute, the Court should grant Reynolds’s MIL 6 and preclude PM/Altria
`
`from presenting any argument, evidence, or testimony regarding Reynolds not obtaining or
`
`relying on an opinion of counsel or suggesting that Reynolds should have obtained one (and any
`
`other adverse inference related to absence of an opinion of counsel).3
`
`
`
`
`2 PM/Altria improperly relies on language from Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543
`F.3d 683, 699 (Fed. Cir. 2008), to argue it would be “manifestly unfair” if it could not refer to
`the absence of an opinion of counsel. See Opp. at 2. But Section 298 “legislatively abrogated
`the Federal Circuit’s Broadcom decision.” Carson Optical, 202 F. Supp. 3d at 259; accord
`LifeNet, 2014 WL 5529679, at *5 (citing legislative history showing “Congress intended to
`abrogate Broadcom); H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 53 (2011) (“Section 298 . . . legislatively
`abrogates the Federal Circuit’s decision in Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.”).
`3 PM/Altria’s reservation to argue a lack of opinion of counsel in relation to its enhanced
`damages claim has no effect on this motion, nor does PM/Altria suggest it does. See Opp. at 4.
`Given Section 298, evidence regarding “failure to obtain the opinion of counsel could not be
`admitted at trial to support the threshold finding of willfulness,” even if “it can be relevant to
`enhancement” post-trial. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Snap-On Inc., 288 F. Supp. 3d 872, 901
`(E.D. Wis. 2017); see also Halo, 281 F. Supp. 3d at 1090-93 (distinguishing willfulness and
`enhanced damages phases of trial for advice-of-counsel argument and defense).
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1060 Filed 02/25/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID# 29439
`
`
`
`Dated: February 25, 2022
`
`
`
`Stephanie E. Parker
`JONES DAY
`1221 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Suite 400
`Atlanta, GA 30361
`Telephone: (404) 521-3939
`Facsimile: (404) 581-8330
`Email: separker@jonesday.com
`
`
`Anthony M. Insogna
`JONES DAY
`4655 Executive Drive
`Suite 1500
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Telephone: (858) 314-1200
`Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
`Email: aminsogna@jonesday.com
`
`William E. Devitt
`JONES DAY
`77 West Wacker
`Suite 3500
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Telephone: (312) 269-4240
`Facsimile: (312) 782-8585
`Email: wdevitt@jonesday.com
`
`Sanjiv P. Laud
`JONES DAY
`90 South Seventh Street
`Suite 4950
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 217-8800
`Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
`Email: slaud@jonesday.com
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ David M. Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana (VA Bar No. 42334)
`Ryan B. McCrum
`JONES DAY
`901 Lakeside Ave.
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`Telephone: (216) 586-3939
`Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
`Email: dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`Email: rbmccrum@jonesday.com
`
`John J. Normile
`JONES DAY
`250 Vesey Street
`New York, NY 10281
`Telephone: (212) 326-3939
`Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
`Email: jjnormile@jonesday.com
`
`
`Alexis A. Smith
`JONES DAY
`555 South Flower Street
`Fiftieth Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 243-2653
`Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
`Email: asmith@jonesday.com
`
`Charles B. Molster
`THE LAW OFFICES OF
`CHARLES B. MOLSTER, III PLLC
`2141 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Suite M
`Washington, DC 20007
`Telephone: (202) 787-1312
`Email: cmolster@molsterlaw.com
`
`Counsel for RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1060 Filed 02/25/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID# 29440
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 25th day of February, 2022, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing was served using the Court’s CM/ECF system, with electronic notification of such filing
`
`to all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David M. Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana (VA Bar No. 42334)
`JONES DAY
`901 Lakeside Ave.
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`Telephone: (216) 586-3939
`Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
`Email: dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`Counsel for RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`
`
`
`
`