Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1076 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 29662
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. and
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`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. 10 TO EXCLUDE
`EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT REYNOLDS INFRINGED OR HAS BEEN
`ACCUSED OF INFRINGING THIRD-PARTY PATENTS
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1076 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID# 29663
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`In re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation,
`No. 15 Civ. 7488 (CM), 2019 WL 6242128 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2019) .....................................3
`
`Rembrandt Vision Techs., L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.,
`725 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................2
`
`TecSec v. Adobe Inc.,
`No. 1:10-CV-115, 2018 WL 11388472 (E.D. Va. Nov. 21, 2018) ............................................3
`
`United States v. Ayala,
`601 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2010) .....................................................................................................3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 .............................................................................................................................1
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 .........................................................................................................................1, 2
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 703 .............................................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1076 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID# 29664
`
`
`
`As Reynolds’s Motion in Limine (“MIL”) 10 showed, third-party infringement
`
`allegations are not relevant to this trial, other than as a narrow carve-out regarding solely the
`
`Fontem-Reynolds Settlement Agreement and solely for purposes of damages. PM/Altria largely
`
`agrees; its response represents that it will not “reference third-party infringement allegations
`
`against RJR (other than Fontem’s allegations) or suggest that RJR is a serial infringer.” Dkt. 997
`
`at 1. PM/Altria’s carve-out for “Fontem’s allegations,” however, is far too open-ended for
`
`purposes of Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403. That broad carve-out fails to limit such
`
`references to the only arguably relevant context—damages—and it also fails to cabin the
`
`argument and evidence to avoid the very suggestion of serial infringement that PM/Altria agrees
`
`would be improper.
`
`PM/Altria’s open-ended carve-out for “Fontem’s allegations” would permit eliciting
`
`testimony on, e.g., specific details of the patent infringement allegations underlying the Fontem-
`
`Reynolds Settlement Agreement, and would even permit such details to be raised as “topics
`
`during opening statements and closing argument.” Dkt. 997 at 2. That breadth encompasses
`
`evidence that has no relevance to the issues to be decided by the jury in this case. Any argument
`
`or evidence regarding the Fontem-Reynolds Settlement Agreement should be limited to relevant
`
`information—namely, the scope of each side’s damages theory. Neither side’s damages theory
`
`relies on much, if any,
`
`PM/Altria’s own expert opines that the nature of the agreement,
`
`—
`
`
`
`’” the agreement. See Dkt. 863 at
`
`6-7 (quoting Meyer Report at ¶ 195). There is thus no basis for permitting the agreement’s
`
`irrelevant litigation context to be injected into this trial. Moreover, open-ended freedom to raise
`
`such third-party infringement allegations would invite argument and evidence that is unfairly
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1076 Filed 02/25/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID# 29665
`
`
`prejudicial to Reynolds and risks confusing and being conflated with the infringement allegations
`
`that are before the jury. Thus, based on lack of relevance and Rule 403 concerns, PM/Altria’s
`
`open-ended proposal should be rejected. Instead, as Reynolds requested, superfluous or
`
`unnecessary references, argument, or evidence relating to the Fontem-Reynolds Settlement
`
`Agreement and underlying litigation should be excluded.
`
`PM/Altria does not dispute the irrelevance of the litigation context of the Fontem-
`
`Reynolds agreement for each side’s damages theory, but nonetheless argues that it “can examine
`
`any competent witnesses on the license in the Fontem-RJR Agreement and the underlying
`
`litigation.” Dkt. 997 at 2. Exploring that litigation with “any competent witness[]” beyond the
`
`scope of each side’s damages theories, however, would be irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.
`
`PM/Altria similarly disregards the basic principle that expert testimony is limited to the scope of
`
`the expert reports. See Rembrandt Vision Techs., L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.,
`
`725 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“An expert witness may not testify to subject matter
`
`beyond the scope of the witness's expert report unless the failure to include that information in
`
`the report was ‘substantially justified or harmless.’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)). As for
`
`PM/Altria’s assertion that “the law requires” experts to “discuss[] the underlying litigations,”
`
`Dkt. 997 at 2, that is misplaced and irrelevant. In this case, Mr. Meyer does not discuss or rely
`
`on the litigation underlying the Fontem-Reynolds agreement in any meaningful way, and it
`
`would be impermissible for him to add new opinions on that topic at this stage.
`
`PM/Altria further claims that Fontem’s infringement allegations against Reynolds are not
`
`inadmissible hearsay because they would not be offered “to prove that RJR actually infringed
`
`Fontem’s patents,” and in any event experts may rely on such hearsay. Id. at 3. But even when
`
`an expert reasonably relies on inadmissible hearsay, that does not mean the expert can be the
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1076 Filed 02/25/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID# 29666
`
`
`conduit for introducing inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 703; see United States v. Ayala, 601
`
`F.3d 256, 275 (4th Cir. 2010) (finding experts cannot “act as mere transmitters”). Further,
`
`PM/Altria’s argument still fails to acknowledge the lack of relevance of Fontem’s infringement
`
`allegations and the risk of unfair prejudice if PM/Altria is permitted to dwell on third-party
`
`infringement allegations.
`
`Finally, PM/Altria tries to suggest that the stipulation it proposed to Reynolds during the
`
`course of this briefing resolves the issue and can (or even must) be adopted. Dkt. 997 at 1. But
`
`for the same reasons that PM/Altria’s proposal in its opposition is inadequate, so too was
`
`PM/Altria’s proposed stipulation, and PM/Altria mischaracterizes Reynolds’s response to that
`
`proposal. See id. As the email communications reflect, Reynolds’s counsel did not seek “to bar”
`
`all testimony regarding the Fontem case. Id. Rather, as Reynolds’s counsel explained,
`
`PM/Altria’s proposal was inappropriate because it would permit delving into “specific testimony
`
`about” the Fontem case. Dkt. 997-2 at 1 (emphasis added).1
`
`There is simply no need to delve into the Fontem litigation in this case. The Court should
`
`grant Reynolds’s MIL No. 10 and exclude evidence or argument that Reynolds infringed or has
`
`been accused of infringing third-party patents, with a carve-out solely for the Fontem-Reynolds
`
`Settlement Agreement and solely for the issue of damages, and to a scope consistent with each
`
`side’s disclosed expert theories on damages.
`
`
`
`
`1 As for PM/Altria’s suggestion that the law compels “binding” Reynolds to the proposed
`stipulation, neither cited case supports PM/Altria. In TecSec v. Adobe Inc., No. 1:10-CV-115,
`2018 WL 11388472, at *4 (E.D. Va. Nov. 21, 2018), TecSec—unlike Reynolds—had previously
`agreed to the joint stipulation. In In re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 15
`Civ. 7488 (CM), 2019 WL 6242128, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2019), the court directed the parties
`to jointly agree on a statement to be read to the jury, with the court preparing the statement if no
`agreement could be reached.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1076 Filed 02/25/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID# 29667
`
`
`
`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 1076 Filed 02/25/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID# 29668
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`