Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-4 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 31983
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-4 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 11 PagelD# 31983
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-4 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 11 PagelD# 31983
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-4 Filed 04/28/22 Page 2 of 11 PageID# 31984
`
`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
`
`
`
`REYNOLDS’S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
`
`When answering the questions and filling out this Verdict Form, 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
`
`“PMI/Altria.” Defendant R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company will be referred to as “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 1204-4 Filed 04/28/22 Page 3 of 11 PageID# 31985
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`I.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,420,374
`Question 1 – Literal Infringement: Do you find that ACS has proven by a preponderance of
`the evidence that Reynolds has literally infringed any of the following claims of the ’374 Patent?
`Claim 3
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`No
`(dependent)
`Claim 4
`(dependent)
`Claim 5
`(dependent)
`Claim 8
`(dependent)
`Claim 10
`(dependent)
`Claim 16
`(independent)
`Claim 18
`(dependent)
`Claim 20
`(dependent)
`Claim 24
`(dependent)
`Claim 25
`(dependent)
`Question 2 – Infringement by the Doctrine of Equivalents: Do you find that ACS has proven
`by a preponderance of the evidence that Reynolds infringed by the doctrine of equivalents any of
`the following claims of the ’374 Patent?
`Claim 16
`
`
`(independent)
`Claim 18
`(dependent)
`Claim 20
`(dependent)
`Claim 24
`(dependent)
`Claim 25
`(dependent)
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-4 Filed 04/28/22 Page 4 of 11 PageID# 31986
`
`Question 3 – Invalidity: Do you find that Reynolds has proven by clear and convincing
`evidence that any of the following claims of the ’374 Patent are invalid as anticipated or
`obvious?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 3
`(dependent)
`Claim 4
`(dependent)
`Claim 5
`(dependent)
`Claim 8
`(dependent)
`Claim 10
`(dependent)
`Claim 16
`(independent)
`Claim 18
`(dependent)
`Claim 20
`(dependent)
`Claim 24
`(dependent)
`Claim 25
`(dependent)
`Answer Question 4 below only if you have found at least one claim of the ’374 Patent is
`infringed and not invalid. If there are no such claims, move on to Part II.
`Question 4 – Damages: What sum of money, if any, did ACS prove by a preponderance of the
`evidence would reasonably compensate it if paid now in cash for any past infringement by
`Reynolds of the ’374 Patent? Provide the amount below in dollars and cents. If you find ACS is
`entitled to no damages, enter a “0” amount.
`
`$_______________________________
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-4 Filed 04/28/22 Page 5 of 11 PageID# 31987
`
`
`
`II.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,803,545
`
`Question 1 – Literal Infringement: Do you find that PM USA has proven by a preponderance
`of the evidence that Reynolds has literally infringed any of the following claims of the ’545
`Patent?
`
`
`Claim 1
`(independent)
`
`Claim 4
`(dependent)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`Question 2 – Invalidity: Do you find that Reynolds has proven by clear and convincing
`evidence that any of the following claims of the ’545 Patent are invalid for lack of written
`description?
`
`
`Claim 1
`(independent)
`
`Claim 4
`(dependent)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`
`
`Answer Question 3 below only if you have found at least one claim of the ’545 Patent is
`infringed and not invalid. If there are no such claims, move on to Part III.
`
`Question 3 – Damages: What sum of money, if any, did PM USA prove by a preponderance of
`the evidence would reasonably compensate it if paid now in cash for any past infringement by
`Reynolds of the ’545 Patent? Provide the amount below in dollars and cents. If you find PM
`USA is entitled to no damages, enter a “0” amount.
`
`$_______________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-4 Filed 04/28/22 Page 6 of 11 PageID# 31988
`
`
`III. U.S. PATENT NO. 9,814,265
`Question 1 – Literal Infringement: Do you find that PMP has proven by a preponderance of
`the evidence that Reynolds has literally infringed any of the following claims of the ’265 Patent?
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`
`(independent)
`
`Claim 4
`(dependent)
`
`Claim 17
`(independent)
`Question 2 – Infringement by the Doctrine of Equivalents: Do you find that PMP has proven
`by a preponderance of the evidence that Reynolds infringed by the doctrine of equivalents any of
`the following claims of the ’265 Patent?
`Claim 1
`
`
`(independent)
`
`Claim 4
`(dependent)
`
`Claim 17
`(independent)
`Question 3 – Invalidity: Do you find that Reynolds has proven by clear and convincing
`evidence that any of the following claims of the ’265 Patent are invalid as obvious?
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`
`(independent)
`
`Claim 4
`(dependent)
`
`Claim 17
`(independent)
`Answer Question 4 below only if you have found at least one claim of the ’265 Patent is
`infringed and not invalid. If there are no such claims, move on to Part IV.
`Question 4 – Damages: What sum of money, if any, did PMP prove by a preponderance of the
`evidence would reasonably compensate it if paid now in cash for any past infringement by
`Reynolds of the ’265 Patent? Provide the amount below in dollars and cents. If you find PMP is
`entitled to no damages, enter a “0” amount.
`
`$_______________________________
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-4 Filed 04/28/22 Page 7 of 11 PageID# 31989
`
`
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 10,104,911
`
`Question 1 – Literal Infringement: Do you find that PMP has proven by a preponderance of
`the evidence that Reynolds has literally infringed any of the following claims of the ’911 Patent
`with respect to any of the following products? Place a check mark in the box for each specific
`product and claim (if any) for which you found PMP has proven literal infringement.
`
`
`Vuse Solo G2 VUSE Alto
`
`
`
`Claim 2
`(dependent)
`
`Claim 11
`(dependent)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 12
`(dependent)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Question 2 – Infringement by the Doctrine of Equivalents: Do you find that PMP has proven
`by a preponderance of the evidence that Reynolds has infringed by the doctrine of equivalents
`any of the following claims of the ’911 Patent with respect to any of the following products?
`Place a check mark in the box for each specific product and claim (if any) for which you found
`PMP has proven infringement by the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`VUSE Solo
`VUSE Solo
`Vuse Ciro
`G1
`G2
`
`Vuse Vibe
`
`VUSE Alto
`
`Claim 2
`(dependent)
`
`Claim 11
`(dependent)
`
`Claim 12
`(dependent)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Question 3 – Invalidity: Do you find that Reynolds has proven by clear and convincing
`evidence that any of the following claims of the ’911 Patent are invalid as obvious?
`Claim 2
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`
`(dependent)
`Claim 11
`(dependent)
`Claim 12
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-4 Filed 04/28/22 Page 8 of 11 PageID# 31990
`
`(dependent)
`
`Answer Question 4 below only if you have found at least one claim is infringed and not
`invalid. If there are no such claims, move on to Part V.
`
`Question 4 – Damages: What sum of money, if any, did PMP prove by a preponderance of the
`evidence would reasonably compensate it if paid now in cash for any past infringement by
`Reynolds of the ’911 Patent? Provide the amount below in dollars and cents. If you find PMP is
`entitled to no damages, enter a “0” amount.
`
`$_______________________________
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-4 Filed 04/28/22 Page 9 of 11 PageID# 31991
`
`
`V.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,555,556
`
`Question 1 – Literal Infringement: Do you find that PMP has proven by a preponderance of
`the evidence that Reynolds has literally infringed claim 4 of the ’556 Patent?
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer Question 2 below only if you have found at least one claim of the ’556 Patent is
`infringed. If there are no such claims, move on to Part VI.
`
`Question 2 – Damages: What sum of money, if any, did PMP prove by a preponderance of the
`evidence would reasonably compensate it if paid now in cash for any past infringement by
`Reynolds of the ’556 Patent? Provide the amount below in dollars and cents. If you find PMP is
`entitled to no damages, enter a “0” amount.
`
`$_______________________________
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-4 Filed 04/28/22 Page 10 of 11 PageID# 31992
`
`
`VI. WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`Answer Question 1 and Question 2 below only for patents where you have found at least
`one claim is infringed and not invalid. If there are no such patents, your deliberations are
`complete. Please sign the form on the last page.
`
`1.
`Do you find that PMI/Altria have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
`Reynolds’s infringement of any patent was willful?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`(If you answered “Yes” to Question 1, answer Question 2; if you answered “No” to
`Question 1, skip Question 2 and your deliberations are complete. Please sign the form on
`the last page.)
`
`2.
`If so, for which patents do you find that PMI/Altria have proven by a preponderance
`of the evidence that Reynolds’s infringement was willful?
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,420,374
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,803,545
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`\U.S. Patent No. 9,814,265
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,104,911
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,555,556
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1204-4 Filed 04/28/22 Page 11 of 11 PageID# 31993
`
`Please sign the form below.
`
`
`
`Jury Foreperson:______________________
`
`
`
`Date: ______________________
`
`9
`
`
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
