Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1222-1 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 32270
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1222-1 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 9 PagelD# 32270
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1222-1 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID# 32271
`
`
`
`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
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF KELLY R. KODAMA
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 10,104,911
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1222-1 Filed 05/06/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID# 32272
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Page
`
`Introduction and Scope of Assignment .............................................................................. 1
`I.
`Summary of Opinions ........................................................................................................ 1
`II.
`Background and Qualifications .......................................................................................... 4
`III.
`IV. Materials Considered ......................................................................................................... 6
`V.
`Legal Principles ................................................................................................................. 6
`A.
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................ 7
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................................ 7
`C.
`Presumption of Validity ......................................................................................... 7
`D.
`Anticipation............................................................................................................ 7
`E.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................................... 8
`The POSITA .................................................................................................................... 11
`VI.
`VII. The Scope and Content of The Prior Art ......................................................................... 12
`A.
`Presumed Invention Date ..................................................................................... 12
`B.
`Background and State of the Industry of Electronic Cigarettes ........................... 13
`1.
`Basic Concepts of Vaporizers and Electronic Cigarettes ........................ 13
`2.
`Storage and Transport of Aerosol-Forming Materials ............................. 17
`3.
`Use of Electric Heating Elements to Vaporize Aerosol-Forming
`Materials .................................................................................................. 17
`Location of Liquid Storage Medium Relative to Heater Element ........... 18
`4.
`Structures and Techniques for Preventing Leakage of Liquid ................. 19
`5.
`Overview of Prior Art References Embodying the Claimed Features ................. 31
`1.
`Xia ............................................................................................................ 31
`2.
`Yang ......................................................................................................... 33
`3.
`Shizumu ................................................................................................... 34
`4.
`Han ........................................................................................................... 35
`5.
`Cho ........................................................................................................... 37
`
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1222-1 Filed 05/06/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID# 32273
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IX.
`
`Choi .......................................................................................................... 39
`6.
`VIII. Patent-in-Suit ................................................................................................................... 40
`A.
`Overview of the ’911 Patent ................................................................................ 40
`B.
`Prosecution History .............................................................................................. 45
`C.
`Asserted Claims ................................................................................................... 48
`D.
`Claim Scope Urged By Philip Morris .................................................................. 48
`Analysis – ’911 Patent ..................................................................................................... 52
`A.
`The Asserted Claims of the ’911 Patent Are Obvious Based on the
`Combination of Xia, Shizumu, and/or the knowledge of a POSITA ................... 53
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 53
`2.
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................................... 65
`3.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................... 66
`4.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................... 67
`5.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................... 68
`The Asserted Claims of the ’911 Patent Are Obvious Based on the
`Combination of Cho, Shizumu, and/or the knowledge of a POSITA .................. 71
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 72
`2.
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................................... 85
`3.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................... 87
`4.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................... 89
`5.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................... 90
`The Asserted Claims of the ’911 Patent Are Obvious Based on the
`Combination of Choi, Shizumu, and/or the knowledge of a POSITA................. 92
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 93
`2.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................... 109
`3.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................. 111
`4.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................. 113
`5.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................. 114
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1222-1 Filed 05/06/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID# 32274
`
`
`
`
`
`
`X.
`XI.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`E.
`
`D.
`
`The Asserted Claims of the ’911 Patent Are Obvious Based on the
`Combination of Han, Shizumu, and/or the knowledge of a POSITA ................ 118
`1.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................... 118
`2.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................... 131
`3.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................. 132
`4.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................. 134
`5.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................. 135
`The Asserted Claims of the ’911 Patent Are Obvious Based on the
`Combination of Yang, Choi, Shizumu and/or the knowledge of a POSITA ..... 140
`1.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................... 140
`2.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................... 155
`3.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................. 156
`4.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................. 158
`5.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................. 161
`Secondary Considerations .............................................................................................. 165
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 168
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1222-1 Filed 05/06/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID# 32275
`
`I.
`
`Introduction and Scope of Assignment
`
`1.
`
`My name is Kelly Kodama. My opinions, as set forth herein, are based on my
`
`education and background in the fields discussed below.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Plaintiff R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (“Plaintiff” or
`
`“Reynolds”) to evaluate and provide my opinions concerning the subject matter of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,104,911 (“’911 patent”) (the “patent-in-suit”) asserted by Plaintiff Philip Morris Products
`
`S.A. (“Philip Morris”). I have been asked to offer my opinions generally regarding the scope
`
`and content of the prior art, the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”), and whether the subject matter of the asserted claims of the ’911 patent was known
`
`or would have been obvious to the POSITA at the time of the alleged invention. I reserve the
`
`right to supplement this Report in response to additional evidence that may come to light or I am
`
`asked to consider.
`
`II.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`
`3.
`
`I understand that Philip Morris has asserted claims 1, 9-11, and 13 (“asserted
`
`claims”) of the ’911 Patent against Reynolds. It is my opinion that, given positions taken by
`
`Philip Morris regarding the scope of the asserted patent claims, each and every element of the
`
`asserted claims was disclosed, suggested, or known in the prior art or would have been obvious
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in view of the prior art at the time of the alleged invention, and the
`
`asserted claims therefore are invalid as obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`4.
`
`The subject matter of the asserted claims was disclosed or suggested by CA
`
`2641869 (“Xia”) (RJREDVA_001488452-480), published on May 6, 2010, alone or, if
`
`necessary, in combination with WO 01/39619 Al (“Shizumu”) (RJREDVA_001550090-123),
`
`published on June 7, 2001, and in view of the general state of the art and the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA at the time of the presumed invention of the ’911 Patent. See Appendix A.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1222-1 Filed 05/06/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID# 32276
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`The subject matter of the asserted claims was disclosed or suggested by KR 20-
`
`2009-0003871 (“Cho”) (RJREDVA_001642374-399), filed on February 20, 2009 and published
`
`on April 27, 2009, alone or, if necessary, in combination with WO 01/39619 Al (“Shizumu”)
`
`(RJREDVA_001550090-123), published on June 7, 2001, and in view of the general state of the
`
`art and the knowledge of a POSITA at the time of the presumed invention of the ’911 Patent. See
`
`Appendix B.
`
`6.
`
`The subject matter of the asserted claims was disclosed or suggested by KR10-
`
`0933516 (“Choi”) (RJREDVA_001643032-060), filed at least as early as March 31, 2009, and
`
`registered on December 15, 2009, alone or, if necessary, in combination with WO 01/39619 Al
`
`(“Shizumu”) (RJREDVA_001550090-123), published on June 7, 2001, and in view of the
`
`general state of the art and the knowledge of a POSITA at the time of the presumed invention of
`
`the ’911 Patent. See Appendix C.
`
`7.
`
`The subject matter of the asserted claims was disclosed or suggested by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,156,944 (“Han”) (RJREDVA_001549939-958), filed on May 15, 2007 (PCT filing
`
`date) and published on April 16, 2009 alone or, if necessary, in combination with WO 01/39619
`
`Al (“Shizumu”) (RJREDVA_001550090-123), published on June 7, 2001, and in further
`
`combination, if necessary, with KR 20-2009-0003871 (“Cho”) (RJREDVA_001642374-399),
`
`and in view of the general state of the art and the knowledge of a POSITA at the time of the
`
`presumed invention of the ’911 Patent. See Appendix D.
`
`8.
`
`The subject matter of the asserted claims was disclosed or suggested by CN
`
`201123395Y (“Yang”) (RJREDVA_001642110-120), published on October 1, 2008, alone or, if
`
`necessary, in combination with KR10-0933516 (“Choi”) ((RJREDVA_001643032-060), filed at
`
`least as early as March 31, 2009, and registered on December 15, 2009, and in further
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1222-1 Filed 05/06/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID# 32277
`
`
`
`
`
`combination, if necessary, with WO 01/39619 Al (“Shizumu”) (RJREDVA_001550090-123),
`
`published on June 7, 2001, and in view of the general state of the art and the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA at the time of the presumed invention of the ’911 Patent. See Appendix E.
`
`9.
`
`I understand that the filing date of the foreign application to which the ’911 Patent
`
`claims priority (EP Application 10252048) is December 3, 2010. For purposes of this Report, I
`
`have assumed that December 3, 2010 is the invention date of the ’911 Patent.
`
`10.
`
`In addition, I have reviewed the prosecution history of the ’911 Patent. Based
`
`upon my review, Philip Morris obtained allowance of the ’911 patent by arguing that the prior art
`
`allegedly failed to disclose an aerosol-generating system having the following combination of
`
`claimed features:
`
`(cid:120)
`
`a “leakage prevention means” comprising “at least one cavity in a wall of the
`
`aerosol-forming chamber, for collecting liquid condensate formed from the
`
`aerosol-forming substrate”
`
`(cid:120)
`
`“wherein the at least one cavity is a blind hole recessed in the wall of the aerosol-
`
`forming chamber and has an open end, a closed end, and a longitudinal direction
`
`extending between the open end and the closed end, and wherein the at least one
`
`cavity has a largest cross-sectional dimension x taken along a cross-section of the
`
`cavity in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the cavity,
`
`where x is 0.5 mm, or 1 mm, or between 0.5 mm and 1 mm.”
`
`11.
`
`As discussed herein, the prior art, including prior art not cited to the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office, disclosed or suggested electronic cigarettes having this claimed
`
`combination of features, including the above-mentioned prior art combinations, among other
`
`prior art cited and discussed herein, in addition to the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1222-1 Filed 05/06/22 Page 9 of 9 PagelD# 32278
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1222-1 Filed 05/06/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID# 32278
`
`Conclusion
`
`Based onthe analysis in this report and the documents and testimonythat I reviewed and
`
`relied upon in reaching my opinions,I have concludedthatthe asserted claimsof the ’911 Patent
`
`are notvalid in light of the prior art and substantial body of knowledge that would have been
`
`known toa POSITAat the time of the purported invention. Moreover,I did not find evidence of
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness, but to the extent such evidenceexistsit is
`insufficient to overcome the overwhelming evidence ofobviousness.
`
`This report sets forth my opinions and the basis and reasons for them.
`
`I reserve the right
`
`to supplementthis report to the extent permitted under the rules if additional information
`
`becomesavailable to me—for example, in response to any determinations by the Court, opinions
`
`expressed by Philip Morris’s experts in thelitigation, or additional evidence or testimony
`
`developed in the proceeding. If called upon to testify at trial, [ may create demonstrative exhibits
`
`or other visual aids to assist with the presentation of my opinions.
`
`
`
`Dated:_02/24/20x1 lh C _—_————
`
`;
`
`Kelly R. Kodama
`
`