Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1065 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 29497
`
`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
`REDACTED
`
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REYNOLDS’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO PRECLUDE
`EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT ANY VUSE PRODUCTS ALLEGEDLY
`INFRINGE ANY CLAIM OF THE ’545 PATENT ON THE BASIS THAT JUUL AND/OR
`NUMARK ALLEGEDLY PRACTICE THAT PATENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1065 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID# 29498
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1065 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 9 PagelD# 29498
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION..000.ooocccccceccceccccceecceeceesceeeceseeeeceseceaecseceaeceaecseceaeceeeceeseseceaecseseaeeeeeeeaseeseaeeeeteeeees 1
`
`ARGUMENT..00....c.ccccceccceccescceseeeseeseeseceseeeecesecseceseceeeesaceaeeeecseseasceaeseeseseceaeseeseeeeeeeeeseeeeeseeeseeeeees 1
`
`L
`
`IL.
`
`PM/Altria Admits It Is Improper To Use RJR’s Statements To Prove Infringement........ 1
`
`PM/Altria Should Be Precluded From Mischaracterizing Reynolds’s Statements........... 2
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION.000oooocccccccccccccceecc cece cceeeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeceeaeeeeeeeeceeeeeceeseeeeeaeeeeaeeseeeeeseeeeseeeseseeeeeeeeeeeeees 4
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1065 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID# 29499
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`ABS Global, Inc. v. Inguran, LLC,
`14-cv-503-wmc, Dkt. 1008 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 14, 2019) ...........................................................2
`
`In re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 15 Civ. 7488 (CM), 2019 WL 6242128 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2019) .....................................1
`
`Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp.,
`C17-1182 TSZ, Dkt. 353 (W.D. Wa. Mar. 4, 2020) ..............................................................1, 2
`
`Va. Innovation Scis., Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`No. 2:12cv548, Dkt. 557 (E.D. Va. Apr. 11, 2014) ...................................................................4
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................................................2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ................................................................................................................................3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 .........................................................................................................................1, 4
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 .............................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1065 Filed 02/25/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID# 29500
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Reynolds’s Motion in Limine (“MIL”) No. 7 is to preclude evidence or argument that any
`
`VUSE products allegedly infringe any claim of the ’545 Patent on the basis that JUUL and/or
`
`NuMark allegedly practice that patent. PM/Altria agrees that its experts never offered that
`
`opinion. Dkt. 987 at 2. To allow PM/Altria to advance such an argument would be unfairly
`
`prejudicial to Reynolds.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`PM/Altria Admits It Is Improper To Use RJR’s Statements To Prove Infringement
`
`Reynolds’s MIL 7 is to preclude evidence or argument of infringement on the basis that
`
`JUUL and/or NuMark allegedly practice the ’545 Patent. PM/Altria agrees that its experts never
`
`offered that opinion. Id. (“PM/Altria has never argued that the accused products ‘infringe’ the
`
`’545 Patent based on JUUL or Nu Mark’s use of that patent.”) Accordingly, the Court should
`
`grant Reynolds’s MIL 7 to prevent PM/Altria from advancing a new infringement theory it did
`
`not previously raise. See, e.g., Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., C17-1182 TSZ, Dkt. 353
`
`at 2 (W.D. Wa. Mar. 4, 2020) (granting motion to preclude defendant’s experts from opining on
`
`any theories of non-infringement not contained within their expert reports); see also Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i) (providing that opening a complete statement of all opinions the witness will
`
`express and the basis and reasons for them).
`
`PM/Altria argues that RJR’s MIL 7 is “moot” citing In re Namenda Direct Purchaser
`
`Antitrust Litigation. Dkt. 987 at 2. But, while the Namenda court denied a motion in limine as
`
`moot, it instructed that the argument sought to be precluded was irrelevant and should not be
`
`referenced at trial. Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 15 Civ. 7488 (CM), 2019
`
`WL 6242128, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2019). In any event, Courts regularly grant motions in
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1065 Filed 02/25/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID# 29501
`
`
`limine to prevent new infringement theories or new opinions that were omitted from expert
`
`reports. Ironburg, No. C17-1182 TSZ, Dkt. 353 at 2; ABS Global, Inc. v. Inguran, LLC, 14-cv-
`
`503-wmc, Dkt. 1008 at 58-59 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 14, 2019) (granting as unopposed a motion in
`
`limine to bar testimony of experts that exceeds the scope of their reports). Accordingly,
`
`Reynolds requests that the Court grant its MIL 7.
`
`II.
`
`PM/Altria Should Be Precluded From Mischaracterizing Reynolds’s Statements
`
`PM/Altria claims that it “did not mischaracterize RJR’s position; they simply quoted it.”
`
`Dkt. 987 at 2. As detailed in Reynolds’s memorandum in support of MIL 7, Mr. McAlexander
`
`and Mr. Meyer did not “simply quote” Reynolds’s position. Rather, they fundamentally
`
`mischaracterized it by omitting the qualifying language. Dkt. 842 at 3-6. PM/Altria should not
`
`be able to say that “RJR admits that ‘JUUL makes, uses, sells, [or] offers for sale . . . one or
`
`more Products that practices one or more claims of the ’545 Patent,” when that simply is not
`
`true. Id., Ex. 4, McAlexander Opening Report at ¶ 681. Reynolds offered a conditional analysis,
`
`which PM/Altria blatantly ignores.
`
`PM/Altria attempts to justify its mischaracterization of Reynolds’s position by arguing
`
`that whether JUUL practices the ’545 patent is relevant to the objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness and damages. Dkt. 987 at 3. First, objective indicia of nonobviousness is not
`
`relevant in this litigation because validity of the ’545 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not at issue
`
`before this Court—anticipation and obviousness are being addressed in IPR2021-00725. Dkt.
`
`901, Ex. 6.
`
`Second, it does not matter whether JUUL practicing the ’545 patent is relevant to
`
`damages. As explained below, PM/Altria failed to disclose this contention—and affirmatively
`
`stated the opposite— during fact discovery. This argument should be precluded. Even if
`
`PM/Altria is allowed to bring in this new argument that JUUL or NuMark practice the ’545
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1065 Filed 02/25/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID# 29502
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1065 Filed 02/25/22 Page 6 of 9 PagelD# 29502
`
`patent, however, PM/Altria should notbe able to short-circuit its analysis by misleading the jury
`
`about Reynolds’s position. For PM/Altria to say that “RJR agrees” on this pointis a
`
`fundamentally incorrect statement, and PM/Altria should be excluded from misrepresenting
`
`Reynolds’s position. The only purpose for PM/Altria to opine on Reynolds’s position is to
`
`confuse and mislead the jury.
`
`Il.
`
`PM/Altria
`
`P| On August 31, 2020, Reynolds propounded Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 14 on
`
`PM/Altria. Ex. 1. Interrogatory No. 11 requested PM/Altria to “[d]escribe with particularity the
`
`first making, use, sale, offer for sale, or public disclosure of any Product or process within the
`
`scope of a claim of the Altria Asserted Patents.” Jd. at 11.
`
`In its most recent response to Interrogatory No. 11, PM/Alltria stated:
`
`Ex. 2 at 7. Interrogatory No. 14 requested PM/Altria to identify its “compli[ance] with the notice
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 including without limitation, for each Product made, offered for
`
`sale, sold, or imported into the United States, that embodies the alleged inventions of the Altria
`
`Asserted Patents.” Ex. 1 at 13. In its most recent response to Interrogatory No. 14, PM/Altria
`
`stated:
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1065 Filed 02/25/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID# 29503
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1065 Filed 02/25/22 Page 7 of 9 PagelD# 29503
`
`Ex. 2 at 9.
`
`ee
`Po “both parties agree that the current E-Vapor market leader (JUUL) uses
`
`the technology claimed in the ’545 Patent.” Dkt. 842, Ex. 6 at § 422; see also id., Ex. 4, § 681.
`
`ee
`ee
`
`“A party who has madea disclosure under Rule 26(a)—or whohasresponded to an
`
`interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission—ust supplementorcorrectits
`
`disclosure or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1). Because PM/Altria “‘fail[ed] to provide
`
`information .
`
`.
`
`. as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), [PM/Altria] is not allowed to use that
`
`information or witness to supply evidence on a motion,at a hearing,or at a trial, unless the
`
`failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Any argument of
`
`JUUL or NuMarkpracticing the ’545 patent should be precluded forthis additional reason. See,
`
`e.g., Va. InnovationScis., Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2:12¢v548, Dkt. 557 at 4-6 (E.D.
`
`Va. Apr. 11, 2014) (precluding theory of infringementraised after fact discovery where plaintiff
`
`failed to supplementits interrogatory response).
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Reynolds respectfully asks this Court to grant Reynolds’s Motion in Limine No. 7 to
`
`preclude evidence or argument that any VUSEproducts allegedly infringe any claim of the ’545
`
`Patent on the basis that JUUL and/or NuMarkallegedly practice that patent.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1065 Filed 02/25/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID# 29504
`
`
`
`
`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 1065 Filed 02/25/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID# 29505
`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`