Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1220 Filed 05/05/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 32252
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIMIT THE
`NUMBER OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES AND PRIOR ART COMBINATIONS FOR
`THE ’911 PATENT
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1220 Filed 05/05/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID# 32253
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................1
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1220 Filed 05/05/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID# 32254
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`No. C 12-1971 CW, 2014 WL 4090550 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014) .........................................2
`
`Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp.,
`Case No. 6:10-cv-00561, Dkt. 293 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2012) ..................................................2
`
`Glob. Sessions LP v. Travelocity.com LP,
`No. 6:10CV671, 2012 WL 9491750 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2012) .................................................2
`
`Keranos, LLC v. Silicon Storage Tech., Inc.,
`No. 2:13-CV-17, 2013 WL 5763738 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013) ................................................2
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1220 Filed 05/05/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID# 32255
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Reynolds fails to justify why it is reasonable to maintain six separate references and six
`
`separate combinations for just claim 2 of the ’911 Patent—let alone eleven separate combinations
`
`for the ’911 Patent. Trial in this case involves five patents. Reynolds knows it will not present six
`
`separate combinations for just one claim from one of those patents. That is not practically feasible
`
`and would add undue complexity to the trial. And while Reynolds asserts that PMI/Altria “ignores
`
`that the references and combinations are similar to and overlap with those identified as invalidating
`
`claims 11 and 12 of the ’911 patent,” that only underscores that Reynolds is capable of a reasonable
`
`reduction to two combinations for this claim. Instead, Reynolds wants to append two additional
`
`references (Egilmex and Murphy) to various combinations it has disclosed for other claims of the
`
`’911 Patent, for a total of six. That is not in the spirit of a reasonable reduction—it is an expansion.
`
`The Court should order Reynolds to reasonably limit the number of prior art references to no more
`
`than three and the number of combinations to no more than two for claim 2 of the ’911 Patent.1
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Reynolds does not dispute that it seeks to present the following six distinct combinations
`
`for just claim 2 of the ’911 Patent:
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`Xia, Shizumu, and Murphy
`Xia, Shizumu, and Egilmex
`Cho, Shizumu, and Murphy
`Cho, Shizumu, and Egilmex
`Han, Shizumu, and Egilmex
`
`
`1 Reynolds asserts that PMI/Altria did not properly meet and confer on this issue. Dkt. 1213
`(“Opp.”) at 1, n.1. That is incorrect. PMI/Altria expressly requested that Reynolds reduce the
`number of prior art combinations for claim 2 of the ’911 Patent. Id. at Ex. 1. Reynolds declined.
`Id. When the parties met and conferred, Reynolds reiterated its refusal. Id. PMI/Altria
`subsequently filed its motion and thereafter renewed its request to obviate the need for motions
`practice. Reynolds maintained its refusal. Id. at Ex. 2.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1220 Filed 05/05/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID# 32256
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Han, Shizumu, and Murphy
`
`As a practical matter, and as the case law supports, that is neither a “reasonable” number of
`
`references nor combinations. Dkt. 1157 at 1. See, e.g., Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys.,
`
`Inc., No. C 12-1971 CW, 2014 WL 4090550, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014) (requiring
`
`Defendants to limit their prior art references to “three references or combinations per patent
`
`claim”); Keranos, LLC v. Silicon Storage Tech., Inc., No. 2:13-CV-17, 2013 WL 5763738, at *4
`
`(E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013) (stating that “[t]he Court routinely limits Defendants to two or three prior
`
`art references” per claim and that it counts a combination as a single prior art reference); Glob.
`
`Sessions LP v. Travelocity.com LP, No. 6:10CV671, 2012 WL 9491750 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2012)
`
`(limiting to three references per claim); Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp., Case No. 6:10-cv-00561, Dkt.
`
`293 at 1-2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2012) (ordering no more than two to three references and
`
`combinations per claim). Reynolds’ arguments to the contrary fail.
`
`First, Reynolds argues that having six references and six combinations is “proportional”
`
`to the total number of asserted claims for the ’911 Patent. Dkt. 1213 (“Opp.”) at 3-4. That is
`
`incorrect. Six references and six combinations is not proportional for one claim. One or two
`
`references and one or two combinations is proportional for one claim. In fact, each additional
`
`reference and each additional combination is exponentially more disproportional because it
`
`requires rebutting a reference, a new motivation to combine, and a new prior invention story. None
`
`of Reynolds’ cited cases suggests that it is reasonable to have six prior art combinations for a single
`
`claim, or eleven combinations across three claims. See Opp. at 3-4.
`
`Second, six references and six combinations is simply too much. Reynolds insists on
`
`maintaining three primary references (Xia, Cho and Han), one secondary reference (Shizumu) and
`
`two tertiary references (Egilmex and Murphy). This is too many primary references, too many
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1220 Filed 05/05/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID# 32257
`
`
`
`tertiary, and too many potential combinations. At this point, it is time to choose, at most, two
`
`primary references. Reynolds does not need three. Reynolds also does not need to maintain two
`
`references for dependent claim 2 (Egilmex and Murphy). We are on the eve of trial. Reynolds
`
`cannot possibly present all these combinations at trial. It is time to pick. Reynolds should pick
`
`one or two primary references and one reference for dependent claim 2.
`
`Third, Reynolds emphasizes that of the six references in its six combinations, four
`
`references overlap with its references for the other ’911 Patent asserted claims. Opp. at 2. But
`
`that shows Reynolds could readily select two combinations for claim 2, which is a dependent claim
`
`directed to a “capillary material.” Id. at 2-3.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`The Court should order Reynolds to limit the number of prior art references and prior art
`
`combinations to no more than three references and two combinations for claim 2 of the ’911 Patent
`
`by no later than May 6, 2022.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 5, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Maximilian 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
`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
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1220 Filed 05/05/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID# 32258
`
`
`
`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 Defendants-Counterclaim Plaintiffs
`Altria Client Services LLC, Philip Morris USA
`Inc., and Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1220 Filed 05/05/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID# 32259
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 5th day of May, 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/ Maximilian 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 Defendants-Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs Altria Client Services LLC, Philip
`Morris USA Inc., and Philip Morris
`Products S.A.
`
`5
`
`