Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1153 Filed 03/16/22 Page 1 of 14 PageID# 30615
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs and
`Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. AND
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USA INC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTS S.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants and
`Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`PMI/ALTRIA’S OPPOSITION TO RJR’S MOTION TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF
`ASSERTED COUNTERCLAIM PATENTS AND/OR CLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1153 Filed 03/16/22 Page 2 of 14 PageID# 30616
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................2
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................2
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`RJR Failed To Articulate A Claim Reduction Proposal Or Mutual
`Narrowing Of Asserted Claims And Prior Art ........................................................3
`
`The Parties Should Engage In A Mutual Narrowing Of The Asserted
`Claims And Prior Art ...............................................................................................4
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................8
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1153 Filed 03/16/22 Page 3 of 14 PageID# 30617
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Wowza Media Sys. LLC,
`No. 11-cv-02243, 2013 WL 9541126 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2013) ................................................. 5
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 12-cv-00630, Dkt. 471 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013) ................................................................ 5
`
`Automated Merchandising Sys., Inc. v. Crane Co.,
`No. 03-cv-88, Dkt. 548 (N.D. W.V. Feb. 15, 2012) .................................................................... 3
`
`Avocent Redmond Corp. v. Rose Elecs.,
`No. C06-1711, 2012 WL 4903270 (W.D. Wash. May 29, 2012) ............................................... 2
`
`BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Rsch. Org.,
`No. 17-cv-503, Dkt. 389 (E.D. Va. July 31, 2019) ..................................................................... 6
`
`BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Rsch. Org., No. 17-cv-503,
`No. 17-cv-503, Dkt. 276 (E.D. Va. May 3, 2019) ....................................................................... 7
`
`Biedermann Techs. GmbH & Co. v. K2M, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-585, Dkt. 50 (E.D. Va. June 11, 2019) ....................................................................... 6
`
`Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-94, Dkt. 75 (E.D. Va. Oct. 10, 2019) ......................................................................... 6
`
`Certusview Techs., LLC v. S & N Locating Servs., LLC,
`No. 13-cv-346, 2014 WL 4930803 (E.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2014) ............................................... 3, 6, 7
`
`Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec,
`No. 04-cv-2607, 2013 WL 680379 (D. Md. Feb. 22, 2013) ....................................................... 5
`
`Fenster Fam. Pat. Holdings, Inc. v. Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc.,
`No. 04-cv-0038, 2005 WL 2304190 (D. Del. Sept. 20, 2005) .................................................... 6
`
`Gentherm Canada, Ltd v. IGB Auto., Ltd.,
`No. 13-cv-11536, 2016 WL 1170801 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2016)............................................. 6
`
`Glaukos Corp. v. Ivantis, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-00620, 2021 WL 4539047 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2021) ............................................... 5
`
`Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc.,
`No. 07-cv-104, 2008 WL 2485426 (E.D. Tex. June 13, 2008) ................................................... 6
`
`Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Rsch. Prods. Corp.,
`No. 17-cv-723, 2018 WL 9669751 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 17, 2018) .................................................. 6
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1153 Filed 03/16/22 Page 4 of 14 PageID# 30618
`
`Huawei Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 16-cv-02787, Dkt. 143 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2017) ............................................................. 4, 6
`
`In re Katz,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`LG Display Co. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
`686 F. Supp. 2d 429 (D. Del. 2010) ............................................................................................ 5
`
`Limelight Networks, Inc. v. XO Commc’ns, LLC,
`No. 15-cv-720, Dkt. 208 (E.D. Va. Oct. 31, 2016) ..................................................................... 4
`
`Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 15-cv-00262, 2015 WL 6659674 (D. Or. Oct. 30, 2015) ..................................................... 6
`
`Midwest Athletics & Sports All. LLC v. Xerox Corp.,
`545 F. Supp. 3d 16 (W.D.N.Y. 2021) .......................................................................................... 6
`
`Rehrig Pac. Co. v. Polymer Logistics (Israel), Ltd.,
`No. 19-cv-4952, 2019 WL 8161141 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2019) ................................................. 6
`
`Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-00158, Dkt. 178 (E.D. Va. July 12, 2013).................................................................. 6
`
`Thought, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.,
`No. 12-cv-05601, 2013 WL 5587559 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2013) ................................................ 3
`
`Univ. of Virginia Pat. Found. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`No. 3:14cv51, 2015 WL 6958073 (W.D. Va. Nov. 10, 2015) .................................................... 3
`
`Universal Elecs. Inc. v. Roku Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-1580, 2019 WL 1878351 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019) ............................................. 5, 6
`
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 18-cv-0966, 2020 WL 4437401 (D. Del. Aug. 3, 2020) ...................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1153 Filed 03/16/22 Page 5 of 14 PageID# 30619
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`RJR’s motion is premature and disingenuous. RJR’s assertion that PMI/Altria “refused”
`
`to reduce the number of asserted claims for trial is false. PMI/Altria confirmed that it will
`
`participate in a mutual streamlining of the issues for trial, including reducing the number of
`
`asserted claims. To facilitate that process, PMI/Altria asked RJR to (i) identify the specific prior
`
`art it intends to present at trial, since it has refused to stipulate that it will not go beyond the
`
`references and combinations disclosed in its expert reports (see, e.g., Dkt. 901, MIL Nos. 2-3 at 3-
`
`5 and Dkt. 1101 at 3-4), and (ii) state its claim reduction proposal. RJR did neither. Instead, it
`
`demanded that PMI/Altria immediately join a phone call as a formality1 so that it could file its pre-
`
`written motion. That is not how the parties should approach trial.
`
`Even in its motion, RJR fails to state its claim reduction proposal, much less offer to
`
`mutually reduce its invalidity presentation. That is telling and should be dispositive. The Court
`
`should deny RJR’s unnecessary motion as premature and direct the parties to engage in an orderly
`
`process to mutually narrow the issues for trial. Specifically, PMI/Altria respectfully requests that
`
`the Court order the parties to engage in the following mutual narrowing of the issues for trial: (i)
`
`within 7 days of this Court’s rulings on the pending Daubert and in limine motions, PMI/Altria
`
`will identify the 25 claims it intends to present at trial, and (ii) 7 days later, RJR will identify no
`
`more than 3 prior art references and no more than 2 obviousness combinations for each of the three
`
`asserted patents on which it challenges validity. That bilateral proposal is reasonable, fair, and
`
`will meaningfully streamline the case to make efficient use of the Court’s and the jury’s time.
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs PMI/Altria understood RJR’s interest in conferring was to narrow the issues for trial.
`RJR only disclosed it planned to file a motion shortly before unilaterally setting a conference call
`time and demanding Plaintiffs join, making plain it did not want to confer on streamlining for
`trial purposes, but merely to file an unnecessary motion without substantively conferring. Mot.,
`Ex. B at 1 (3/11/2022 Email from M. Grant).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1153 Filed 03/16/22 Page 6 of 14 PageID# 30620
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Trial is set for June 6, 2022. Dkt. 946. PMI/Altria allege willful infringement of five
`
`patents from five separate patent families.2 During expert discovery, to streamline the case,
`
`PMI/Altria withdrew seven asserted claims. Mot. at 1. Thus, there are currently 45 asserted
`
`claims—which PMI/Altria has confirmed it will work with RJR to mutually reduce for trial.
`
`RJR raises anticipation/obviousness against only three of the five asserted patents (the
`
`’374, ’265, and ’911). For the ’545 and ’556 Patents, RJR stipulated that it will not present
`
`anticipation or obviousness defenses at trial (for the sake of its IPR petitions). Dkts. 895-6, 895-
`
`7; see also Dkt 965 at 3 (confirming RJR will adhere to its stipulations). In view of those
`
`stipulations, PMI/Altria asked RJR to stipulate that it would not present prior art related to the ’545
`
`or ’556 patents at trial. RJR refused. Dkt. 901 at 3-5; Dkt. 1101 at 3. RJR maintains that it should
`
`be allowed to use the same prior art it stipulated away in support of its written description and
`
`damages arguments. Dkt. 1101 at 3. That is the subject of PMI/Altria’s pending MIL No. 2. Dkt.
`
`901 at 3. In sum, prior art validity is at issue with respect to only three asserted patents, and RJR’s
`
`proposed use of prior art with regard to the remaining two patents remains knowingly unspecified
`
`and undefined.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`As the party seeking to force a reduction of claims, RJR may not “simply assert that the
`
`case would be much easier to try if there were fewer claims involved and invite the Court to grant
`
`dispositive relief for judicial efficiency reasons.” Avocent Redmond Corp. v. Rose Elecs., No. 06-
`
`cv-1711, 2012 WL 4903270, at *1 (W.D. Wash. May 29, 2012). Instead, “[i]n determining
`
`whether to require parties to limit claims,” courts consider (and the moving party should at least
`
`
`2 (1) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,803,545; 10,420,374; 9,814,265; 10,555,556; and 10,104,911.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1153 Filed 03/16/22 Page 7 of 14 PageID# 30621
`
`address) “the number of claims at issue and the feasibility of trying them to a jury and whether the
`
`claims are duplicative or share a common genealogy.” Univ. of Virginia Pat. Found. v. Gen. Elec.
`
`Co., No. 14-cv-51, 2015 WL 6958073, at *5 (W.D. Va. Nov. 10, 2015).
`
`But, the Court’s inherent authority to reasonably limit the number of claims for trial also
`
`applies “to limit the number of invalidity arguments and prior art references that defendants may
`
`assert.” Certusview Techs., LLC v. S & N Locating Servs., LLC, No. 13-cv-346, 2014 WL
`
`4930803, at *6 (E.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2014). Such mutual limitation is common. Universal Elecs. Inc.
`
`v. Roku Inc., No. 18-cv-1580, 2019 WL 1878351, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019) .
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`RJR Failed To Articulate A Claim Reduction Proposal Or Mutual
`Narrowing Of Asserted Claims And Prior Art
`
`RJR refuses (despite being asked several times) to identify (i) the number of asserted claims
`
`that it contends are appropriate for trial, (ii) the date by which to identify those claims, or (iii) the
`
`number of prior art references and combinations that it intends to raise at trial. Mot., Ex. B. This
`
`is basic information necessary for a meaningful mutual reduction process.
`
`RJR asserts that courts have not required “a prima facie showing of duplication in order to
`
`require a reduction in the number of asserted claims.” Mot. at 5 (quoting Thought, Inc. v. Oracle
`
`Corp., No. 12-cv-05601, 2013 WL 5587559, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2013)). That is incorrect.
`
`In the Fourth Circuit, courts require parties seeking to limit the number of claims for trial to raise
`
`at least “the specter of duplicity to warrant a shift of burden to [plaintiff] to show it would be
`
`permitted to assert more than [the requested reduced number of claims].” Automated
`
`Merchandising Sys., Inc. v. Crane Co., No. 03-cv-88, Dkt. 548, at 5 (N.D. W.V. Feb. 15, 2012);
`
`see also Univ. of Virginia Pat. Found., 2015 WL 6958073, at *6 (“Such a showing of duplication
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1153 Filed 03/16/22 Page 8 of 14 PageID# 30622
`
`weighs in favor of limiting claims and shifting the burden to the plaintiff to demonstrate that
`
`unselected claims raise unique issues.”). RJR failed to do so.
`
`B.
`
`The Parties Should Engage In A Mutual Narrowing Of The Asserted Claims
`And Prior Art
`
`PMI/Altria plans to reasonably reduce the number of asserted claims for trial, just like any
`
`good trial lawyer would. But RJR should likewise agree to do its part as part of the overall issue
`
`reduction process. Thus, PMI/Altria proposes that: (i) within 7 days of this Court’s rulings on the
`
`pending Daubert and in limine motions, PMI/Altria will identify the 25 total claims that it intends
`
`to present at trial, and (ii) within 7 days thereafter, RJR will identify no more than 3 prior art
`
`references and no more than 2 obviousness combinations per patent that it intends to present at
`
`trial. PMI/Altria’s proposal is reasonable in light of the scope of this case and well supported by
`
`case law and common sense.
`
`First, presenting 25 claims across 5 asserted patents is proper because the patents belong
`
`to separate families and present distinct issues of infringement and invalidity. Cf. Mot. at 3
`
`(identifying that certain patents are only asserted against certain accused products). Moreover,
`
`RJR stipulated to not present any anticipation or obviousness defenses for two of the five asserted
`
`patents (the ’545 and ’556 Patents) at trial. Dkts. 895-6; 895-7. Thus, the number of asserted
`
`claims is irrelevant for two patents with respect any burden RJR may allege regarding presenting
`
`prior art defenses. And further reducing any purported “undue burden on the Court or the jury,”
`
`(Mot. at 12) RJR’s own infringement claims are stayed and, thus, unlike many of the cases on
`
`which RJR relies, trial will not be delayed with extensive cross-claims of infringement.3
`
`
`3 See, e.g., Limelight Networks, Inc. v. XO Commc’ns, LLC, No. 15-cv-720, Dkt. 208, at 1-2 (E.D.
`Va. Oct. 31, 2016) (ordering claim reduction where both parties asserted over 75 claims over at
`least five patents); Huawei Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 16-cv-02787, Dkt. 143, at 2
`(N.D. Cal. June 7, 2017) (ordering both sides to reduce asserted claims and accused products);
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1153 Filed 03/16/22 Page 9 of 14 PageID# 30623
`
`The case law that RJR cites supports PMI/Altria’s proposal. For example, in Glaukos
`
`Corp. v. Ivantis, Inc. (cited by RJR, Mot. at 7), the court found the defendant’s proposal of 6 total
`
`claims for 2 patents was “unreasonable” and instead allowed 10 claims for those 2 patents—i.e., 5
`
`claims per patent, as PMI/Altria proposes here. No. 18-cv-00620, 2021 WL 4539047, at *2 (C.D.
`
`Cal. Aug. 11, 2021). And in Universal Elecs. Inc. v. Roku Inc., the Court ordered the plaintiff to
`
`reduce to 6 claims per patent containing a unique specification—one more claim per patent than
`
`PMI/Altria proposes here. 2019 WL 1878351, at *4.
`
`Additional cases support PMI/Altria’s proposal. In Honeywell International Inc. v. Furuno
`
`Electric Co., the court noted that in a case with 5 patents, “[r]educing the number of asserted claims
`
`to between 30 and 35 should be the parties’ goal.” No. 09-cv-3601, 2014 WL 12599633, at *5 (D.
`
`Minn. Jan. 29, 2014). And in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec, the court ordered the
`
`parties to reduce to 30 claims across three patents after it issued its Markman decision. No. 04-
`
`cv-2607, 2013 WL 680379, at *4 (D. Md. Feb. 22, 2013); see also Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Wowza Media
`
`Sys. LLC, No. 11-cv-02243, 2013 WL 9541126, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2013) (ordering a
`
`reduction to 20 claims across 4 patents).
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 12-cv-00630, Dkt. 471, at 2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013)
`(same); LG Display Co. v. AU Optronics Corp., 686 F. Supp. 2d 429, 434 (D. Del. 2010) (ordering
`claim reduction in an action involving 23 patents collectively asserted by both parties).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1153 Filed 03/16/22 Page 10 of 14 PageID# 30624
`
`RJR’s remaining cited cases do not even order reduction, or do so without explanation.4
`
`Others involved trials with both infringement claims and counterclaims,5 asserted patents from the
`
`same family, or patents with overlapping subject matter.6 None of those circumstances exist here,
`
`where PMI/Altria assert five patents from five distinct patent families that present unique
`
`infringement and validity issues. At most, RJR’s cases suggest that parties should mutually narrow
`
`their claims—and defenses—for trial. See, e.g., Certusview, 2014 WL 4930803, at *6-7; Huawei
`
`Techs., Co., No. 16-cv-02787, Dkt. 143, at 2. PMI/Altria agrees.
`
`Second, RJR should reduce its number of prior art references and combinations for trial.
`
`This is particularly important because, as the Court knows from PMI/Altria’s pending MIL Nos.
`
`
`4 See, e.g., Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook, Inc., No. 13-cv-00158, Dkt. 178 at 1 (E.D.
`Va. July 12, 2013) (claim reduction order only); VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 18-cv-0966,
`2020 WL 4437401, at *2 (D. Del. Aug. 3, 2020) (denying motion to add more claims); Fenster
`Fam. Pat. Holdings, Inc. v. Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc., No. 04-cv-0038, 2005 WL 2304190, at
`*3 (D. Del. Sept. 20, 2005) (noting its claim reduction in context of discovery was “obviously
`arbitrary”); Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 18-cv-94, Dkt. 75, at 1 (E.D. Va.
`Oct. 10, 2019); Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc., No. 07-cv-104, 2008 WL 2485426, at *1
`(E.D. Tex. June 13, 2008); Midwest Athletics & Sports All. LLC v. Xerox Corp., 545 F. Supp. 3d
`16, 19-21 (W.D.N.Y. 2021).
`5 See supra note 3.
`6 See, e.g., Certusview 2014 WL 4930803, at *3 (noting that four of the five asserted patents “are
`related and share nearly identical specifications”); Biedermann Techs. GmbH & Co. v. K2M, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-585, Dkt. 44 at 5 (E.D. Va. June 11, 2019) (explaining that there are 11 asserted patents
`in only 6 families); BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Rsch. Org., No. 17-cv-
`503, Dkt. 389 at 2 (E.D. Va. July 31, 2019) (17 patents in only five patent families); In re Katz,
`639 F.3d 1303, 1308-09 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (14 patents but only four unique specifications); Rehrig
`Pac. Co. v. Polymer Logistics (Israel), Ltd., No. 19-cv-4952, 2019 WL 8161141, at *5 (C.D. Cal.
`Aug. 30, 2019) (“three of the five asserted patents have a common genealogy”); Universal Elecs.,
`2019 WL 1878351, at *4 (nine asserted patents in four families); Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel
`Corp., No. 15-cv-00262, 2015 WL 6659674, at *1 (D. Or. Oct. 30, 2015) (finding all asserted
`patents directed to same subject matter); Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Rsch. Prods. Corp., No. 17-cv-
`723, 2018 WL 9669751, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 17, 2018) (finding “the overlapping nature of the
`patents” warranted claim reduction); Gentherm Canada, Ltd v. IGB Auto., Ltd., No. 13-cv-11536,
`2016 WL 1170801, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2016) (reducing claims appropriate when “a
`defendant has produced evidence that the plaintiff’s patent claims are duplicative”).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1153 Filed 03/16/22 Page 11 of 14 PageID# 30625
`
`2 and 3, RJR has refused to stipulate that it will even abide by the references disclosed in its expert
`
`report or its stipulations before the PTAB. Dkt. 901 at 3-5; Dkt. 1101 at 3-4. But as RJR’s own
`
`cited cases from this District recognize, “the Court [] has the authority to limit the number of
`
`invalidity arguments and prior art references that defendants may assert.” Certusview, 2014 WL
`
`4930803, at *6. Courts exercise that authority where, as here, the defendant refuses to narrow its
`
`invalidity case for trial. Indeed, in RJR’s own cited case, Certusview, the court required the
`
`defendants to narrow its asserted prior art within seven days after the plaintiff identified the
`
`narrowed claims. 2014 WL 4930803, at *3. Likewise, in BASF, the Court ordered a mutual
`
`narrowing of asserted claims and references. No. 17-cv-503, Dkt. 276 at 2 (E.D. Va. May 3, 2019).
`
`The same result follows here. For example, while RJR only asserts anticipation or
`
`obviousness arguments against three of the asserted patents, it currently asserts 17 separate
`
`references and 18 different combinations. If one includes the two asserted patents for which RJR
`
`cannot present anticipation or obviousness arguments—but nonetheless refuses to agree not to
`
`discuss the related prior art at trial—the real number rises to 27 separate references and 28
`
`different combinations. This is unmanageable in an eight-day trial. RJR’s assertions to the
`
`contrary are wrong.
`
`RJR contends that it already “significantly reduced the number of prior art references and
`
`combinations it will rely on to prove anticipation or obviousness at trial.” Mot. at 12. The opposite
`
`is true. RJR (inexplicably) opposes PMI/Altria’s MIL No. 2, which seeks to narrow the asserted
`
`prior art for the ’545 and ’556 patents in view of RJR’s own stipulations. RJR also opposes
`
`PMI/Altria’s MIL No. 3, refusing to agree not to present expert testimony at trial about prior art
`
`references not disclosed in their expert reports. Dkt. 1101 at 3-4. RJR’s prior conduct, if relevant,
`
`therefore confirms the Court should order RJR to narrow its invalidity case for trial. And,
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1153 Filed 03/16/22 Page 12 of 14 PageID# 30626
`
`regardless of RJR’s alleged prior narrowing, the indisputable fact remains that RJR’s current
`
`election of prior art is far too expansive to be efficiently presented in the upcoming eight-day trial.
`
`RJR also contends that “it would not be productive” to limit “the number of prior art
`
`references for trial until PM/Altria identifies the infringement claims it will present to the jury.”
`
`Mot. at 12. That is incorrect. Less than four months from trial, RJR knows the references it intends
`
`to present to the jury. Regardless, this point is moot because under PMI/Altria’s proposal, RJR
`
`will identify the prior art and combinations it intends to present based on PMI/Altria’s
`
`identification of asserted claims.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The process of reducing claims and defenses for trial should be mutual. PMI/Altria
`
`respectfully request that the Court deny RJR’s motion, adopt PMI/Altria’s proposal, and order
`
`(i) PMI/Altria to, within 7 days of this Court’s rulings on the pending Daubert and in limine
`
`motions, identify the 25 total claims that it intends to present at trial, and (ii) RJR to, no later than
`
`7 days thereafter, identify the specific prior art—no more than 3 prior art references and no more
`
`than 2 obviousness combinations for each of the three asserted patents on which it challenges
`
`validity.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1153 Filed 03/16/22 Page 13 of 14 PageID# 30627
`
`
`
`Dated: March 16, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Maximilian A. Grant
`Maximilian A. Grant (VSB No. 91792)
`max.grant@lw.com
`Lawrence J. Gotts (VSB No. 25337)
`lawrence.gotts@lw.com
`Matthew J. Moore (pro hac vice)
`matthew.moore@lw.com
`Jamie Underwood (pro hac vice)
`jamie.underwood@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 637-2200
`Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
`
`Clement J. Naples (pro hac vice)
`clement.naples@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`885 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022-4834
`Tel: (212) 906-1200; Fax: (212) 751-4864
`
`Gregory J. Sobolski (pro hac vice)
`greg.sobolski@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 391-0600
`Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
`
`Brenda L. Danek (pro hac vice)
`brenda.danek@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
`Chicago, IL 60611
`Tel: (312) 876-7700
`Fax: (312) 993-9767
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Altria Client Services
`LLC, Philip Morris USA Inc., and Philip
`Morris Products S.A.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1153 Filed 03/16/22 Page 14 of 14 PageID# 30628
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 16th day of March, 2022, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing was served using the Court’s CM/ECF filing system, with electronic notification of
`
`such filing to all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`/s/ Maximilian A. Grant
`Maximilian A. Grant (VSB No. 91792)
` LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 637-2200
`Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
`Email: max.grant@lw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Altria Client
`Services LLC, Philip Morris USA Inc.,
`and Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`