`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-3 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 10 PagelD# 31973
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-3 Filed 04/28/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID# 31974
`
`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.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393-LO-TCB
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
`
`The below verdict form provides questions and instructions that will serve as your verdict
`
`in this case. When answering the questions and instructions, please follow the instructions
`
`provided throughout the form. Your answer to each question must be unanimous. Some of the
`
`questions contain legal terms that are defined and explained in detail in the Court’s Jury
`
`Instructions. Please refer to the Jury Instructions if you are unsure about the meaning or usage of
`
`any legal term that appears in the questions below.
`
`In the verdict form, Plaintiffs Altria Client Services LLC (“ACS”), Philip Morris USA Inc.
`
`(“PM USA”) and Philip Morris Products S.A. (“PMP”) may be referred to collectively as
`
`“Plaintiffs” or “PMI/Altria.” Defendants RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. (“RAISH”) and R.J.
`
`Reynolds Vapor Company (“RJR”) may be referred to collectively as “Defendants” or “Reynolds.”
`
`We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them
`
`under the instructions of this Court as our verdict in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-3 Filed 04/28/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID# 31975
`
`I.
`
`QUESTION NO. 1 – INFRINGEMENT
`
`Do you find that PMI/Altria have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Reynolds
`has infringed any of the following claims? Answer “Yes” or “No” for each claim identified below.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,803,545
`
`1. Claim 1
`
`2. Claim 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,814,265
`
`1. Claim 1
`
`2. Claim 4
`
`3. Claim 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,104,911
`
`1. Claim 2
`
`2. Claim 11
`
`3. Claim 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,420,374
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`1. Claim 3
`
`2. Claim 4
`
`3. Claim 5
`
`4. Claim 8
`
`5. Claim 10
`
`6. Claim 16
`
`7. Claim 18
`
`8. Claim 20
`
`9. Claim 24
`
`10. Claim 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-3 Filed 04/28/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID# 31976
`
`E.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,555,556
`
`1. Claim 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-3 Filed 04/28/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID# 31977
`
`II.
`
`QUESTION NO. 2 – WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`Do you find that PMI/Altria have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
`Reynolds’ infringement was willful?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-3 Filed 04/28/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID# 31978
`
`III. QUESTION NO. 3 – VALIDITY
`
`Do you find that Reynolds has proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the
`following claims of the ’545 Patent are invalid for an alleged lack of written description? Answer
`“Yes” or “No” for each claim identified below.
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,803,545
`
`1. Claim 1
`
`2. Claim 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`Do you find that Reynolds has proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the
`following claims are invalid? Answer “Yes” or “No” for each claim identified below.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,814,265
`
`1. Claim 1
`
`2. Claim 4
`
`3. Claim 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,104,911
`
`1. Claim 2
`
`2. Claim 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`3. Claim 12
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,420,374
`
`1. Claim 3
`
`2. Claim 4
`
`3. Claim 5
`
`4. Claim 8
`
`5. Claim 10
`
`6. Claim 16
`
`7. Claim 18
`
`8. Claim 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-3 Filed 04/28/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID# 31979
`
`9. Claim 24
`
`10. Claim 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-3 Filed 04/28/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID# 31980
`
`IV. QUESTION NO. 4 – DAMAGES
`
`For each patent identified below, answer the question below only if you found above that Reynolds
`infringed at least one claim that you also found is not invalid.
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,803,545
`
`What sum of money did Philip Morris USA Inc. prove by a preponderance of the evidence
`would be adequate compensation for Reynolds’ infringement of the ’545 Patent? Provide the
`amount below in dollars and cents.
`
`
`
`
`
`$_______________________________
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,814,265
`
`What sum of money did Philip Morris Products S.A. prove by a preponderance of the
`evidence would be adequate compensation for Reynolds’ infringement of the ’265 Patent? Provide
`the amount below in dollars and cents.
`
`
`
`
`
`$_______________________________
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,104,911
`
`What sum of money did Philip Morris Products S.A. prove by a preponderance of the
`evidence would be adequate compensation for Reynolds’ infringement of the ’911 Patent? Provide
`the amount below in dollars and cents.
`
`
`
`
`
`$_______________________________
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,420,374
`
`What sum of money did Altria Client Services LLC prove by a preponderance of the
`evidence would be adequate compensation for Reynolds’ infringement of the ’374 Patent? Provide
`the amount below in dollars and cents.
`
`
`
`
`
`$_______________________________
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-3 Filed 04/28/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID# 31981
`
`E.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,555,556
`
`What sum of money did Philip Morris Products S.A. prove by a preponderance of the
`evidence would be adequate compensation for Reynolds’ infringement of the ’556 Patent? Provide
`the amount below in dollars and cents.
`
`
`
`
`
`$_______________________________
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-3 Filed 04/28/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID# 31982
`
`V.
`
`END OF JURY VERDICT FORM
`
`You have now reached the end of the Verdict Form and should review it to ensure it
`accurately reflects your unanimous determinations. If you are satisfied that your unanimous
`answers are accurately reflected above, please have the Jury Foreperson sign and date this form in
`the spaces below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Jury Foreperson:______________________
`
`
`
`Date: ______________________
`
`8
`
`