Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1066 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 29524
`
`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. 8 TO EXCLUDE
`REFERENCES TO THE LOCATION IN CHINA OF REYNOLDS’S
`MANUFACTURERS AND SUPPLIERS OF THE VUSE PRODUCTS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1066 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID# 29525
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2014 WL 549324 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2014) .......................................4
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2016 WL 824711 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2016) ......................................2
`
`Black & Decker Corp. v. Positec USA Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-5426, 2017 WL 4010922 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2017) .................................................5
`
`CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Eng’g, Inc.,
`No. LA CV13-08418, Dkt. 349 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2016) .......................................................2
`
`Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc.,
`No. 3:17-cv-04738-WHO, 2021 WL 75666 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021) ...................................3, 5
`
`Dentsply Sirona Inc. v. Edge Endo, LLC,
`No. 1:17CV1041-JFB-SCY, 2020 WL 6392764 (D.N.M. Nov. 2, 2020) .............................3, 4
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS, 2021 WL 3021253 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2021) .......................1, 4, 5
`
`Personalized User Model, L.L.P v. Google Inc.,
`No. 09-525-LPS, 2014 WL 807736 (D. Del. Feb. 27, 2014) .....................................................3
`
`Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc.,
`No. SACV 12-00329 AG (JPRx), 2014 WL 8096334 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21,
`2014) ......................................................................................................................................1, 3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 .....................................................................................................................1, 4, 5
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1066 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID# 29526
`
`
`
`The location in China of the manufacturers and suppliers of Reynolds’s VUSE products
`
`is not relevant to this trial. And even if this location information had any minimal relevance, it
`
`would be substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice; commentary or references that
`
`even implicitly or unintentionally invites bias should be precluded under Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 403. Indeed, PM/Altria agrees to “not make any ‘negative references to Chinese or
`
`overseas manufacturing or supply-chain roles.’” Dkt. 981 at 1, 3. This agreement logically
`
`includes the full scope of Reynolds’s motion. Its MIL 8 should be granted.
`
`1.
`
`The location in China of Reynolds’s manufacturers and suppliers is not relevant to
`
`any issue to be tried. Dkt. 849 at 3-5. While PM/Altria asserts this information is “probative and
`
`relevant” and even “highly probative,” PM/Altria fails to substantiate this. Dkt. 981, at 3 nn.1 &
`
`4; see also id. at 1 (“learning relevant facts”), (“indisputably relevant technical documents”), id.
`
`at 2 (“relevance of technical documents”). It does not, and cannot, show that the manufacturers’
`
`location is relevant to any element of any claim to be tried.
`
`Nor do PM/Altria’s cited cases establish relevance. In Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No.
`
`5:19-CV-00036-RWS, 2021 WL 3021253 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2021), the court did not find
`
`location information relevant; it expressly premised reference to foreign suppliers on first
`
`establishing relevance: “To the extent that such evidence is relevant, Maxell may reference a
`
`component of an Apple accused product that is produced by a foreign supplier or manufacturer
`
`without violating this order.” Id. at *10 (emphasis added). In citing Universal Electronics, Inc.
`
`v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., No. SACV 12-00329 AG (JPRx), 2014 WL 8096334 (C.D.
`
`Cal. Apr. 21, 2014), PM/Altria omits that court’s direction that “all counsel shall refrain from
`
`unnecessarily mentioning, dwelling on, remarking on, or encouraging inferences related to
`
`national origin or foreign incorporation, manufacturing, or ownership.” Id. at *7. And in citing
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1066 Filed 02/25/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID# 29527
`
`
`CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Engineering, Inc., No. LA CV13-08418, Dkt. 349 (C.D. Cal. May 16,
`
`2016), and Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2016 WL 824711
`
`(N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2016), PM/Altria omits that those cases involved foreign parties and their
`
`foreign operations, which is not the case here, and even so, the courts circumscribed the
`
`evidence. See CH2O, Dkt. 349 at 1 (limiting evidence of “Defendants’ foreign operations” for
`
`“background purposes” of “Defendants’ businesses”); Apple, 2016 WL 824711, at *3 (permitting
`
`references to the defendant as “Samsung Korea” or similar, and references to the country of
`
`employment of Samsung witnesses, in order to “explain Samsung’s corporate structure and the
`
`interplay between various executives”). Here, in contrast, Reynolds (i.e., RAI Strategic
`
`Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company) is a domestic company, its employees live
`
`locally, and the Chinese manufacturers and suppliers are third parties not directly involved in this
`
`case.1
`
`As for PM/Altria’s argument that Reynolds’s motion is “overbroad” and would
`
`“sweep[]” in entity “names” and documents that “reveal” an entity’s location abroad, that is a
`
`straw man. See Dkt. 981 at 1-2. Reynolds’s MIL 8 does not request exclusion of names or other
`
`“indicia” of an entity’s location in China. Reynolds likewise does not seek exclusion of any
`
`documentary evidence simply because the document happens to list a location. Accordingly,
`
`PM/Altria’s concern with entity names and documents like its Exhibit A (a technical
`
`specification of a foreign entity whose “corporate name,” identified on the document,
`
`
`
` 1
`
` PM/Altria argues that, in a prior discovery ruling, Magistrate Judge Buchanan found “that RJR
`controls its suppliers.” Dkt. 981 at 2. That is incorrect. As explained in Reynolds’s opposition
`to PM/Altria’s MIL 6, Magistrate Judge Buchanan found only that Reynolds has control “over
`the ability to produce the source code” for purposes of document production in discovery. See
`Dkt. 965 at 13-14 (Part VI). Magistrate Judge Buchanan did not find that Reynolds has a
`corporate relationship with or other “control” over the suppliers.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1066 Filed 02/25/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID# 29528
`
`
`“indicate[s]” that the entity is located in China, id. at 2 & 4) is misplaced. PM/Altria’s
`
`invocation of case law allowed documents with “stray” or “incidental references” to location
`
`(Contour) or that “happen[] to contain a foreign address” (Personalized User Model) is likewise
`
`off point. Id. at 2.
`
`Rather, given the irrelevance of such information to this trial, Reynolds’s motion seeks
`
`exclusion of affirmatively referencing that its manufacturers and suppliers are located abroad and
`
`particularly in China, i.e., eliciting testimony on this topic, highlighting it in demonstratives, or
`
`raising it in opening statements, closing arguments, or other commentary before the jury. See,
`
`e.g., Dkt. 849 at 1-2. PM/Altria’s own cited cases reflect the distinction. As Personalized User
`
`Model explained, while “relevant admissible evidence” that “happens to contain a foreign
`
`address” may not warrant exclusion “solely based on the foreign address,” counsel and witnesses
`
`should be precluded from referencing the foreign nature of the location, such as by labeling an
`
`entity as “foreign.” Personalized User Model, L.L.P v. Google Inc., No. 09-525-LPS, 2014 WL
`
`807736, at *4 (D. Del. Feb. 27, 2014). PM/Altria’s Contour case made the same point. See
`
`Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-04738-WHO, 2021 WL 75666, at *9
`
`(N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021) (while permitting “stray geographic markers on otherwise admissible
`
`documents,” endorsing the parties’ stipulation to “not ‘elicit from any witness the geographic
`
`location of GoPro’s manufacture, sale, offer to sell, use, or importation,’” which would be
`
`improperly “aimed at the introduction of evidence to purposefully show these geographic
`
`connections of the company,” and directing the parties to present the incidental evidence of
`
`foreign location “in a neutral, uninflammatory way”); see also Dentsply Sirona Inc. v. Edge
`
`Endo, LLC, No. 1:17CV1041-JFB-SCY, 2020 WL 6392764, at *3 (D.N.M. Nov. 2, 2020) (while
`
`allowing relevant documents that recited the Chinese manufacturer’s name, directing plaintiffs to
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1066 Filed 02/25/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID# 29529
`
`
`not “do anything that resembles stereotyping or generalizing about the Chinese or their alleged
`
`patent practices”).
`
`References to the manufacturer locations should be excluded for lack for relevance alone.
`
`2.
`
`Even if the manufacturer locations have any minimal relevance, references to that
`
`information risk unfairly prejudicing Reynolds. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. PM/Altria essentially
`
`concedes that such testimony risks undue prejudice; it agrees “that it will not make any ‘negative
`
`references to Chinese or overseas manufacturing or supply-chain roles.’” Dkt. 981 at 1, 3.
`
`PM/Altria nonetheless contends that identifying manufacturers by “their geographic
`
`location in China, without more,” is “not prejudicial,” apparently attempting to draw a line
`
`between explicit and implicit remarks. Id. at 4. That is incorrect. As Reynolds explained,
`
`explicitly or implicitly injecting foreign location into a trial, such as by eliciting testimony about
`
`a manufacturer’s foreign location, is unfairly prejudicial. See Dkt. 849 at 5. Indeed, both
`
`scenarios would fall within PM/Altria’s own concession that negative references should be
`
`excluded. Bias need not be explicitly enflamed. Compounding the risk of bias here, recent
`
`public discourse has involved reporting on China not abiding by intellectual property laws,
`
`particularly U.S. intellectual property laws. Id. at 7. PM/Altria does not dispute this fact and its
`
`attendant concerns.
`
`PM/Altria attempts to defend its invitation of implicit references by selecting quoting
`
`from cases and missing the forest for the trees. See Dkt. 981 at 3. Courts are not concerned only
`
`with expressly “negative references to foreign activities” or “repeated references,” id., but also
`
`implicit references or other suggestive inquiries. For instance, the Apple court explained that
`
`“fairness is undermined when counsel either explicitly or implicitly invokes the prejudice of
`
`jurors rather than relying on the applicable law and the proven facts.” Apple, Inc. v. Samsung
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1066 Filed 02/25/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID# 29530
`
`
`Electronics Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2014 WL 549324, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2014)
`
`(emphasis added). The arguments in Apple that were “troubling” were implicit and suggestive,
`
`not purely overt—they permitted “listeners to connect the dots and make troubling inferences.”
`
`Id. at *13; see id. at *11, *13 (noting that counsel’s argument “clearly suggested an us-versus-
`
`them, American-versus-non-American theme,” by such comments as: “We are extremely
`
`fortunate to live in what I’ll call the Greater Bay Area”; “When I was young, I used to watch
`
`television on televisions that were manufactured in the United States” by “real companies,”
`
`“creators,” and “inventors”; “But they didn’t protect their intellectual property. They couldn’t
`
`protect their ideas. And you all know the result. There are no American television manufacturers
`
`today.”). Likewise, in Black & Decker Corp. v. Positec USA Inc., No. 11-cv-5426, 2017 WL
`
`4010922 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2017), the court precluded not only “repeated references” to“the
`
`“Chinese billionaire” (Dkt. 981 at 3), but any reference to the “Chinese billionaire” and any
`
`reference to “the origin of Defendants’ products.” Id. at *6 (emphasis added). PM/Altria’s own
`
`cited cases are in accord. See Maxell, 2021 WL 3021253, at *10 (excluding “[e]vidence or
`
`references to Apple’s foreign operations used to imply that Apple outsources American jobs,
`
`‘sources from abroad,’ or otherwise unfairly prejudice” (emphasis added)); Contour IP Holding,
`
`2021 WL 75666, at *9 (endorsing party’s representation that it will not “state or imply anything”
`
`that could create an atmosphere of hostility toward foreign corporations” (emphasis added)).
`
`In short, even if the location information has any minimal relevance, Rule 403
`
`independently warrants exclusion, and MIL 8 should be granted.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1066 Filed 02/25/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID# 29531
`
`
`
`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 1066 Filed 02/25/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID# 29532
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`