`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1190 Filed 04/15/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 31622
`
`IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS,INC., et. al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Vv.
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC,et. al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nem”Newme!Neepe’”Soe”SeeNeneNeeee”Ngee”ree”ee”eee”
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393
`Hon. Liam O’Grady
`
`ORDER
`
`This matter comes before the Court on Phillip Morris and Altria’s Motion regarding a
`
`prior art dispute. Dkt. 1143. The Motion has been fully briefed by the Parties and was discussed
`
`at oral arguments. After consideration of the Motion, the Court has decidedit is appropriate to
`
`grant summary judgment sua sponte for Phillip Morris and Altria on a limited factual issue. See
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)(3).
`
`The Parties currently dispute whether Philip Morris and Altria may assert that a Chinese
`
`Utility Patent (“CN ‘667”) shares the same inventor as United States Patent Number 10,420,374
`
`(“the *374 patent”). There is no dispute betweenthe Parties that the inventor, Loi Ying Liu,is the
`
`same inventor listed on both CN ‘667 and the ‘374 patent. Reynolds has argued that Phillip
`
`Morris and Altria should be foreclosed from making the assertion of common inventorship
`
`because this fact was not disclosed during discovery. However, the Court finds that Reynolds has
`
`been awareof this fact well in advance oftrial. In addition, the factual dispute originated from
`
`differences in the Parties’ translations of Chinese to English. The dispute is notthe result of any
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1190 Filed 04/15/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 31623
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1190 Filed 04/15/22 Page 2 of 2 PagelD# 31623
`
`action taken in bad faith. Accordingly, there is no undue prejudice to Reynolds from allowing the
`
`assertion of common inventorship.
`
`After considering the Parties’ positions and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`56, there is no genuine dispute offact regarding the identity of the inventor, Mr. Liu. Therefore,
`
`the Court finds that the inventor listed on the ‘374 patent and the CN ‘667 patent is the same
`
`individual. The Court makes no findings on the priority dates accorded to any patents or specific
`
`patent claims that are at issue in this case. Those findings will be established at trial after the
`
`record has been fully developed. The Court appreciates the Parties’ attention to this matter and
`
`hopes that the Parties continue to collaborate and streamline the issues that will be presented at
`
`trial.
`
`It is so ORDERED.
`
`
`
`April|S020 Liam Soni
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`United States District Judge
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
