throbber
Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1071 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 29628
`
`
`
`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. 9 TO
`EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT, OR TESTIMONY RELATING TO INCORRECT
`IMAGES, DIAGRAMS, DRAWINGS, OR DESCRIPTIONS OF THE VUSE ALTO
`CARTRIDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1071 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID# 29629
`
`
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 .............................................................................................................................3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 .............................................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1071 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID# 29630
`
`
`
`Motion in Limine No. 9 is narrowly tailored to exclude only incorrect depictions of the
`
`Vuse Alto. The incorrect images, diagrams, or descriptions that Reynolds seeks to exclude are
`
`not relevant to Reynolds’s design-around arguments for the ’911 patent. Indeed, neither
`
`PM/Altria’s nor Reynolds’s experts rely on these incorrect depictions of the VUSE Alto. Thus,
`
`there is no connection between them and Reynolds’s design-around arguments. Nor is there any
`
`connection
`
`
`
`No experts rely on the incorrect VUSE Alto images, diagrams, or descriptions for the
`
`purposes of infringement or damages. On its face, Reynolds’s MIL 9 is directed only to
`
`“evidence, argument, or testimony relating to incorrect images, diagrams, drawings, or
`
`descriptions of the VUSE Alto cartridge.” Despite PM/Altria’s suggestion otherwise, MIL 9
`
`seeks exclusion of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`these exhibits contain inaccurate depictions of the VUSE Alto. In fact, PM/Altria, specifically
`
` PM/Altria admits that it knows which specific portions of
`
`agreed tha
`
`PM/Altria does not point to where any of its experts have relied on
`
`.
`
`Instead, PM/Altria argues that
`
`Reynolds’s technical expert, Kelly Kodama,
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
` Dkt. 991 at 5.
`
`
`
`
`
` Not so.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1071 Filed 02/25/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID# 29631
`
`
`
`when he opined on design-around options for the ’911 patent. Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 25, 41, 61, 87,
`
`119-139, Exhibit 1. Nor did Reynolds’s other experts, Dr. Sullivan and Mr. Clissold, rely on
`
`
`
` to support their opinions. To the contrary, both relied on Mr. Kodama’s
`
`testimony when considering design-arounds for the ’911 patent. Ex. 2 at ¶¶ 49, 54-55; Ex. 3 at
`
`¶¶ 285-286, Attachment A-7.
`
`PM/Altria’s insinuation that there is a connection between
`
`
`
` and Mr. Kodama’s opinions on design around options for the ’911
`
`patent (Dkt. 991 at 2-3) is misplaced. The best PM/Altria can do to support its argument is to
`
`cite to its expert Stacy Ehrlich’s opinion,
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 4 at 186:5-189:16. This testimony is conclusory and speculative at best, and it
`
`is subject to Reynolds’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Stacy Ehrlich. Dkt. 879. But more
`
`importantly, PM/Altria’s argument still misses the point that
`
`
`
`
`
` Dkt. 991 at 3.
`
`PM/Altria’s relevance argument is based on a previously undisclosed damages argument.
`
`Until its Opposition to Reynolds’s MIL 9, PM/Altria had not disclosed this damages argument in
`
`any expert reports, witness testimony, or discovery responses. While PM/Altria points generally
`
`to sections of its expert Stacy Ehlrich’s report and deposition testimony in its Opposition,
`
`
`
` Dkt. 991 at 2-4. None of these citations, however, addresses the argument
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1071 Filed 02/25/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID# 29632
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PM/Altria should not be allowed to claim relevance to incorrect depictions of the VUSE
`
`Alto cartridge by way of a previously undisclosed argument at this late stage in the proceeding.
`
`PM/Altria has known of
`
` for over a year. Its expert reports were due after
`
`PM/Altria was aware of the issue. If PM/Altria wanted to make its argument, it could have done
`
`so at least before the close of discovery on May 12, 2021, over nine months ago. If PM/Altria
`
`intends to rely on expert testimony to support its argument, it has failed to do so as required by
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) (an expert witness is required to provide “a complete statement of all
`
`opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them”) and as such, Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 37(c) applies (“If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule
`
`26(a) or (e), the party 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.”)
`
`(emphasis added). Reynolds respectfully asks this court to grant its MIL 9.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1071 Filed 02/25/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID# 29633
`
`
`
`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 1071 Filed 02/25/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID# 29634
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket