Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1154 Filed 03/17/22 Page 1 of 15 PageID# 30629
`
`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 TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF
`ASSERTED COUNTERCLAIM PATENTS AND/OR CLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1154 Filed 03/17/22 Page 2 of 15 PageID# 30630
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 2
`I.
`THIS COURT CAN AND SHOULD LIMIT PM/ALTRIA TO 10 ASSERTED
`CLAIMS FOR TRIAL ....................................................................................................... 2
`PM/ALTRIA’S ARGUMENT ABOUT THE PRIOR ART IS A RED HERRING ......... 6
`A.
`There Is No Basis For Any Order Requiring Reynolds To Further Limit Its
`Prior Art ................................................................................................................. 6
`PM/Altria’s Proposed Rules For Narrowing The Issues Are Unfair To
`Reynolds ................................................................................................................ 7
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 8
`
`B.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1154 Filed 03/17/22 Page 3 of 15 PageID# 30631
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Acantha LLC v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc.,
`No. 15-C-1257, 2017 WL 5186376 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 8, 2017) ..................................................7
`
`Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Wowza Media Sys. LLC,
`No. 3:11-cv-02243-JST, Dkt. No. 547 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2015) .............................................5
`
`Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Wowza Media Sys. LLC,
`No. 11-CV-02243-JST, 2013 WL 9541126 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2013) ......................................4
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA,
`No. 2:15-cv-1455-WCB, 2017 WL 373462 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2017) .....................................6
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 12-CV-00630-LHK, Dkt. No. 471 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013) ............................................2
`
`Automated Merchandising Sys., Inc. v. Crane Co.,
`No. 3:03-CV-88 (L), Dkt. 548 (N.D. W.V. Feb. 15, 2012) .......................................................5
`
`BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Rsch. Org.,
`No. 2:17-cv-503, Dkt. No. 276 (E.D. Va. May 3, 2019) ...........................................................3
`
`Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2:18cv94, Dkt. No. 75 (E.D. Va. Oct. 10, 2019) ................................................................3
`
`Certusview Techs., LLC v. S & N Locating Servs., LLC,
`No. 2:13-CV-346, 2014 WL 4930803 (E.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2014) .............................................4, 8
`
`Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec,
`No. 1:04-cv-02607-WDQ, Dkt. No. 313 (D. Md. July 15, 2014)..............................................5
`
`Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec,
`No. WDQ-04-2607, 2013 WL 680379 (D. Md. Feb. 22, 2013) ................................................5
`
`Gentherm Canada, Ltd v. IGB Auto., Ltd.,
`No. 13-11536, 2016 WL 1170801 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2016) ................................................3
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1154 Filed 03/17/22 Page 4 of 15 PageID# 30632
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Glaukos Corp. v. Ivantis, Inc.,
`No. SACV 18-00620 JVS (JDEx), 2021 WL 4539047 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11,
`2021) ......................................................................................................................................3, 4
`
`Page
`
`Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc.,
`No. 9:07CV104, 2008 WL 2485426 (E.D. Tex. June 13, 2008) ...............................................3
`
`Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Furuno Elec. Co.
`No. 09-cv-3601, 2014 WL 12599633 (D. Minn. Jan. 29, 2014) ...............................................4
`
`Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Furuno Elec. Co.,
`No. 09-cv-03601, Dkt. No. 376 (D. Minn. Sept. 25, 2015) .......................................................4
`
`Huawei Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO, Dkt. No. 143 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2017) ...........................................3
`
`LG Display Co. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
`686 F. Supp. 2d 429 (D. Del. 2010) ...........................................................................................2
`
`Limelight Networks, Inc. v. XO Commn’ns, LLC,
`No. 3:15-cv-720-JAG, Dkt. No. 208 (E.D. Va. Oct. 31, 2016) .................................................3
`
`Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 3:15-cv-00262-SI, 2015 WL 6659674 (D. Or. Oct. 30, 2015) ...................................3, 4, 8
`
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`No. C 10-03561 WHA, 2011 WL 12209477 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2011).....................................2
`
`Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 1:13cv00158, Dkt. No. 178 (E.D. Va. July 12, 2013).........................................................2
`
`Sherwin-Williams Co. v. PPG Indus.,
`No. 17-1023, 2021 WL 1110568 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2021) .................................................3, 4
`
`Universal Elecs. Inc. v. Roku Inc.,
`No. SACV 18-1580 JVS (ADx), 2019 WL 1878351 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019) ..............4, 5, 6
`
`Univ. of Va. Pat. Found. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`No. 3:14CV51, 2015 WL 6958073 (W.D. Va. Nov. 10, 2015) .................................................5
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1154 Filed 03/17/22 Page 5 of 15 PageID# 30633
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Unwired Planet LLC v. Google Inc.,
`No. 3:12-CV-0505-MMD (VPC), 2013 WL 5592896 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2013) .......................8
`
`Page
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................................................6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1154 Filed 03/17/22 Page 6 of 15 PageID# 30634
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`PM/Altria does not dispute Reynolds is entitled to the relief it requests—that PM/Altria
`
`be ordered to disclose the reduced list claims it intends to pursue at trial. Thus, Reynolds’s
`
`motion should be granted.
`
`PM/Altria’s opposition seeks to turn Reynolds’s motion into one of its own, offering to
`
`reduce the number of claims for trial from 45 to 25 while at the same time, as a purported
`
`“mutual narrowing,” limiting the number of prior art references and combinations Reynolds can
`
`rely on. To start, the great weight of authority, including in this district, limits patentees to
`
`between three and fifteen total claims at trial, even when patents from as many as five different
`
`families are asserted, as is the case here. Next, PM/Altria—the non-movant—seeks an entirely
`
`disparate order limiting Reynolds’s ability to present its invalidity case. But that is procedurally
`
`and substantively improper because PM/Altria did not file any motion seeking that relief, thus
`
`that issue is not before the Court, and Reynolds already reduced the number of prior art
`
`references it will present at trial. Moreover, the prior art narrowing PM/Altria requests is
`
`unreasonable. While PM/Altria wants to try 25 claims, most of which are dependent claims, it
`
`asks the Court to prohibit Reynolds from presenting any more than nine total prior art references
`
`or six total obviousness combinations. PM/Altria cites no authority for such a one-sided order.
`
`Given that Reynolds has already significantly limited its prior art references, any further
`
`requirement to limit those references is inappropriate, and certainly should only occur (if ever)
`
`after PM/Altria identifies the reduced number of claims it will present to the jury.
`
`Accordingly, PM/Altria should be ordered to promptly disclose its reduced set of claims
`
`for trial. A total of ten claims for trial would be an appropriate limit, based on the cases
`
`Reynolds cited to the Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1154 Filed 03/17/22 Page 7 of 15 PageID# 30635
`
`
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`THIS COURT CAN AND SHOULD LIMIT PM/ALTRIA TO 10 ASSERTED
`CLAIMS FOR TRIAL.
`
`PM/Altria does not contest the need to narrow its claims for trial or this Court’s authority
`
`to do so. However, its proposal to present 25 claims to the jury is excessive, unmanageable, and
`
`unsupported. Instead, the case law shows that courts generally limit parties to between 3 and 15
`
`total claims prior to trial. See Dkt. 1148, 6-11, citing, e.g.:
`
` Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10-03561 WHA, 2011 WL 12209477, at *1
`
`(N.D. Cal. May 3, 2011) (ordering plaintiff in a 7-patent case to reduce the number of
`
`claims to 3)1;
`
` Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 12-CV-00630-LHK, Case Mgmt. Order, Dkt.
`
`No. 471, at 2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013) (limiting each side to 5 asserted patents and a
`
`total of 5 asserted claims for a for a 12-day jury trial)2;
`
` Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook, Inc., No. 1:13cv00158, Order, Dkt. No.
`
`178, at 1 (E.D. Va. July 12, 2013) (ordering plaintiff in a 2-patent case to reduce the
`
`number of claims to 3 or 4 per patent at most before trial—i.e., a total of 6 to 8
`
`claims);
`
` LG Display Co. v. AU Optronics Corp., 686 F. Supp. 2d 429, 434 & n.1 (D. Del.
`
`2010) (highlighting that the court ordered “the parties to reduce the number of patents
`
`
`1 Emphasis is added unless otherwise noted.
`2 PM/Altria seeks to distinguish a few of Reynolds’s cited cases where courts limited asserted
`claims in cases where there were both infringement claims and counterclaims. Dkt. 1153, 4-5 &
`n.3. However, PM/Altria does not identify any one of those cases as having ordered a reduction
`in claims solely because the case involved infringement claims in both directions. To the
`contrary, courts routinely and undisputably have the authority to limit the number of claims for
`trial in the absence of bi-directional claims. See Dkt. 1148, 5-9.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1154 Filed 03/17/22 Page 8 of 15 PageID# 30636
`
`
`
`
`
`and claims asserted to a total of 4 patents and 7 claims per side”);
`
` Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc., No. 9:07CV104, 2008 WL 2485426, at *1
`
`(E.D. Tex. June 13, 2008) (limiting plaintiff in a 3-patent case to 3 claims per
`
`patent—i.e., no more than 9 claims total);
`
` Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2:18cv94, Order, Dkt. No. 75, at 1
`
`(E.D. Va. Oct. 10, 2019) (limiting plaintiff in a 5-patent case to 10 claims);
`
` Limelight Networks, Inc. v. XO Commn’ns, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-720-JAG, Order, Dkt.
`
`No. 208, at 1-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 31, 2016) (limiting each side in an 11-patent case to 10
`
`claims);
`
` BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Rsch. Org., No. 2:17-cv-503,
`
`Order, Dkt. No. 276, at 2 (E.D. Va. May 3, 2019) (limiting plaintiffs in a 16-patent
`
`case to 10 claims);
`
` Huawei Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO, Order
`
`Regarding Case Mgmt. Proposals, Dkt. No. 143, at 2 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2017)
`
`(limiting each side to 5 asserted patents and a total of 10 claims);
`
` Glaukos Corp. v. Ivantis, Inc., No. SACV 18-00620 JVS (JDEx), 2021 WL 4539047,
`
`at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2021) (limiting the number of claims in a 2-patent case to
`
`10 prior to trial);
`
` Sherwin-Williams Co. v. PPG Indus., No. 17-1023, 2021 WL 1110568, at *5-6 (W.D.
`
`Pa. Mar. 23, 2021) (limiting plaintiff in a 5-patent case to 10 claims);
`
` Gentherm Canada, Ltd v. IGB Auto., Ltd., No. 13-11536, 2016 WL 1170801, at *2
`
`(E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2016) (limiting plaintiff in a 7-patent case to 14 claims);
`
` Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 3:15-cv-00262-SI, 2015 WL 6659674, at
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1154 Filed 03/17/22 Page 9 of 15 PageID# 30637
`
`
`
`*3 (D. Or. Oct. 30, 2015) (limiting plaintiff in a 5-patent case to 15 claims);
`
` Certusview Techs., LLC v. S & N Locating Servs., LLC, No. 2:13-CV-346, 2014 WL
`
`4930803, at *5 (E.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2014) (limiting plaintiff in a 5-patent case to 15
`
`claims).
`
`Reynolds submits that a similar limit is appropriate here.
`
`PM/Altria’s attempts to find “support” to try 25 different claims fall flat. Indeed, other
`
`courts have found similar (and lower) numbers of claims unworkable for trial. See Dkt. 1148, 7
`
`(citing Glaukos, where the court ordered the plaintiff to reduce the number of claims from 23 to
`
`10 prior to trial and citing Sherwin-Williams where the court required the plaintiff to reduce the
`
`number of claims from 24 to 10 for trial). PM/Altria’s cited cases are inapposite. As noted
`
`above, the Glaukos court limited the total number of claims to 10 prior to trial. See 2021 WL
`
`4539047, at *2. And in each of the other cases PM/Altria cites, the limitations were made at
`
`earlier stages in the cases. For instance, in Universal Electronics Inc. v. Roku Inc., a case that is
`
`still pending, the Court limited the patentee to 25 total claims over 9 patents (i.e., less than 3
`
`claims per patent) at a much earlier stage than here—prior to claim construction and with fact
`
`discovery ongoing. No. SACV 18-1580 JVS (ADx), 2019 WL 1878351, at *1-2, 5 (C.D. Cal.
`
`Mar. 14, 2019). The same is true for Honeywell International Inc. v. Furuno Electric Co.,3 and
`
`Adobe Systems Inc. v. Wowza Media Systems LLC, where the patentee also “acknowledge[d] that
`
`it would not proceed to trial on any more than fifteen claims.” No. 11-CV-02243-JST, 2013 WL
`
`9541126, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2013). Neither of those cases went to trial. See fn. 2; see also
`
`
`3 See No. 09-cv-3601 (MJD/TNL), 2014 WL 12599633, at *4 (D. Minn. Jan. 29, 2014) (ordering
`the parties “to meet and confer in an effort to limit significantly the number of asserted claims,”
`prior to claim construction). That case settled, and 30-35 claims were not tried to a jury. See
`Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Furuno Elec. Co., No. 09-cv-03601 (MJD/TNL), Dkt. 376 (D. Minn.
`Sept. 25, 2015).
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1154 Filed 03/17/22 Page 10 of 15 PageID# 30638
`
`
`Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Wowza Media Sys. LLC, No. 3:11-cv-02243-JST, Dkt. 547 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13,
`
`2015). And in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec, the accused infringer’s motion
`
`requested a limitation to 30 claims, which the Court ordered to be done within 15 days of the
`
`claim construction ruling—i.e., still at an earlier phase of the case than the parties are here. No.
`
`WDQ-04-2607, 2013 WL 680379, at *3-4 (D. Md. Feb. 22, 2013). That case was not tried to a
`
`jury with 30 claims. See Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec, No. 1:04-cv-02607-
`
`WDQ, Dkt. 313 (D. Md. July 15, 2014). In fact, PM/Altria does not cite any case allowing 25
`
`patent claims to go to the jury.
`
`PM/Altria’s deflections about Reynolds’s purported burden to show duplication is
`
`similarly of no avail. As Reynolds explained, courts routinely hold that accused infringers are
`
`not required to “make a prima facie showing of duplication in order to require a reduction in the
`
`number of asserted claims.” Dkt. 1148, 5-6 (citation omitted); see also Universal Elecs., 2019
`
`WL 1878351, at *3 (“the Court agrees with other district courts holding that a defendant is not
`
`required to make a prima facie showing that the claims are duplicative in order to justify a
`
`limitation on the number of asserted claims”).4
`
`Finally, while PM/Altria claims that Reynolds’s motion is “premature,” that assertion is
`
`inconsistent with the collection of authority that typically requires narrowing at much earlier
`
`
`4 PM/Altria’s cases are not contrary. For instance, in University of Virginia Patent Foundation v.
`General Electric Co., the court did not require that the accused infringer make a showing of
`duplication in the claims, it merely observed that there was evidence of duplication and the court
`affirmed that “When the [patentee] is in the best position to narrow the dispute, allocating the
`production burden to the [patentee] will benefit the decision-making process.” No. 3:14CV51,
`2015 WL 6958073, at *6 (W.D. Va. Nov. 10, 2015). In Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc.
`v. Crane Co., the court was not addressing a limitation of claims for the first time. No. 3:03-CV-
`88 (L), Dkt. 548, at 5 (N.D. W.V. Feb. 15, 2012). Instead, the court was addressing a renewed
`motion to limit claims, after the patentee had already reduced its claims to 26 across 4
`consolidated actions. Id. at 4.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1154 Filed 03/17/22 Page 11 of 15 PageID# 30639
`
`
`stages than the case here.5 PM/Altria proposes that it not be required to narrow its claims until a
`
`time after rulings on all motions in limine and Daubert motions. But notably, PM/Altria never
`
`says why or how any of those pending motions would impact its reduction of asserted claims.
`
`Nor does PM/Altria cite any cases supporting its position. Thus, now is the time for PM/Altria to
`
`disclose the no more than 10 claims it intends to try.
`
`II.
`
`PM/ALTRIA’S ARGUMENT ABOUT THE PRIOR ART IS A RED HERRING.
`A.
`
`There Is No Basis For Any Order Requiring Reynolds To Further Limit Its
`Prior Art.
`
`PM/Altria’s request for a further narrowing of Reynolds’s prior art is procedurally
`
`improper and substantively unwarranted. Procedurally, there is no pending motion for reduction
`
`of Reynolds’s prior art references, so the matter is not before the Court. See Allergan, Inc. v.
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, No. 2:15-cv-1455-WCB, 2017 WL 373462, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jan.
`
`26, 2017) (refusing to limit the number of prior art references as requested in an opposition to a
`
`request to limit claims, because “[t]he issue of the reduction in the number of prior art
`
`references” was not properly before the court and the court was not in a position to rule on the
`
`issue.)
`
`Substantively, no further limitation is necessary. Reynolds already significantly reduced
`
`its asserted prior art. See Dkt. 1148, 11-12. PM/Altria fails to explain how the purported “17
`
`separate references and 18 different combinations” of prior art (Dkt. 1153, 7 (emphasis in
`
`original)) for the 3 patents with 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 defenses make the trial unmanageable.
`
`
`5 See Dkt. 1148, 7-8 (citing case law requiring claim narrowing even prior to the start of
`discovery, prior to the close of fact discovery, prior to claim construction, prior to the close of
`expert discovery, and prior to dispositive motions); see also, e.g., Universal Elecs., 2019 WL
`1878351, at *2 (explaining “The weight of authority holds that claim limitation is proper prior to
`claim construction.”).
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1154 Filed 03/17/22 Page 12 of 15 PageID# 30640
`
`
`Acantha LLC v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., No. 15-C-1257, 2017 WL 5186376, at *4 (E.D. Wis.
`
`Nov. 8, 2017) (noting that “Courts only limit the number of a defendant’s asserted prior art
`
`references as a reciprocal measure when the number of asserted references is unmanageable,”
`
`and refusing to impose such a limitation where plaintiff had not provided a compelling reason to
`
`do so). Moreover, a reduction in PM/Altria’s asserted claims may also help to reduce the
`
`remaining prior art.
`
`B.
`
`PM/Altria’s Proposed Rules For Narrowing The Issues Are Unfair To
`Reynolds.
`
`PM/Altria’s proposal to assert 25 separate claims from 5 asserted patents at trial while
`
`restricting Reynolds to reliance on a total of 9 prior art references and 6 combinations in support
`
`of its invalidity defenses is grossly one-sided. Setting aside the issues with the unmanageable
`
`nature of having 25 asserted claims (addressed in Section I, above), such limitations on
`
`Reynolds’s defense would be unprecedented and highly prejudicial.
`
`Notably, PM/Altria does not cite a single case imposing such onerous restrictions on an
`
`accused infringer. And just looking at one example in this case shows the absurdity of the
`
`request. PM/Altria continues to assert 20 claims of the ’374 patent, including 4 independent
`
`claims and 16 dependent claims. Under PM/Altria’s proposal, it could continue to assert all of
`
`those claims. Simultaneously, the proposal would tie Reynolds’s hands by permitting it to raise
`
`only 3 references and 2 obviousness combinations (which would effectively limit Reynolds to no
`
`obviousness combinations if Reynolds wishes to maintain its anticipation reference)6 to prove
`
`invalidity of all 20 asserted claims. This lacks support in law or equity.
`
`
`6 Reynolds currently asserts an anticipation reference as well as obviousness combinations, each
`of which consist of a combination of 3 references that are different from the anticipation
`reference.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1154 Filed 03/17/22 Page 13 of 15 PageID# 30641
`
`
`
`In cases where courts have limited prior art and/or obviousness combinations, they do so
`
`only in proportion to the asserted claims, and only after those claims are limited. For instance, in
`
`Certusview, the court required the defendants to limit their prior art references to 25 (without
`
`also placing any limits on obviousness combinations), and requiring such limitation only after
`
`plaintiff limited its asserted claims to 15. 2014 WL 4930803, at *7; see also Memory Integrity,
`
`2015 WL 6659674, at *4 (requiring the accused infringer to limit its prior art references to 35,
`
`but only three weeks after plaintiff narrowed its asserted claims to 15); Unwired Planet LLC v.
`
`Google Inc., No. 3:12-CV-0505-MMD (VPC), 2013 WL 5592896, at *5 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2013)
`
`(finding that the number of prior art references the accused infringer could rely upon would be a
`
`function of the claims asserted by patentee, and ruling that defendant could rely on 5 prior art
`
`references per independent claim asserted and 8 references per dependent claim for trial). Any
`
`limitation on prior art here (which should not be necessary given Reynolds’s prior reduction)
`
`should be similarly proportional to the number of claims PM/Altria is permitted to present to the
`
`jury.
`
`Reynolds’s motion should be granted, and PM/Altria should be limited to a total of no more
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`than 10 total claims for trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1154 Filed 03/17/22 Page 14 of 15 PageID# 30642
`
`
`Dated: March 17, 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
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1154 Filed 03/17/22 Page 15 of 15 PageID# 30643
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 17th day of March, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`