Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1289 Filed 06/07/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 32991
`
`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
`
`
`REYNOLDS’S BENCH BRIEF REGARDING EXPECTED IMPERMISSIBLE TOPICS
`OF TESTIMONY OF MOIRA GILCHRIST
`
`PM/Altria intend to call Dr. Moira Gilchrist to testify on Wednesday, June 8. Reynolds
`
`anticipates that Dr. Gilchrist’s testimony will implicate several topics on which this Court has
`
`already granted motions in limine. Consistent with those Orders, Dr. Gilchrist should be precluded
`
`from testifying about these topics.
`
` First, this Court has excluded all reference to PM/Altria’s IQOS tobacco product save
`for the “narrow purpose of establishing the competitive relationship of” the parties.
`Dkt. 1184-1 at 9 (Order on Reynolds MIL 11).
`
` Second, PMP’s VEEV product is potentially relevant only to PM/Altria’s claim for
`injunctive relief, and is therefore excluded as “evidence solely related to a request for
`an injunction.” Dkt. 1184-1 at 3 (Order on Reynolds MIL 4).
`
`Reynolds respectfully requests that the Court exclude any reference by Dr. Gilchrist to
`
` 
`
`IQOS beyond the narrow reference previously identified by the Court, and exclude altogether any
`
`reference to the irrelevant VEEV product.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1289 Filed 06/07/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 32992
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`DR. GILCHRIST MAY NOT TESTIFY ABOUT IQOS BEYOND THE NARROW
`PURPOSE ALLOWED BY THE COURT’S ORDER ON REYNOLDS’S MIL 11
`
`The Court excluded “any evidence regarding the technology in IQOS, regulatory history
`
`of the IQOS device, or regulatory benefits of the IQOS device” as “not relevant.” Dkt. 1184-1 at
`
`9. The Court reasoned that such evidence “would be confusing and misleading” to the jury. Id. at
`
`8-9. Accordingly, the only permissible reference to IQOS is “for the narrow purpose of
`
`establishing the competitive relationship of” the parties. Id. at 9. Reynolds nonetheless expects
`
`that PM/Altria may attempt to elicit additional, prohibited testimony from Dr. Gilchrist about
`
`IQOS, such as the IQOS technology or regulatory history. Such irrelevant testimony would be
`
`plainly inadmissible under the Court’s ruling on Reynolds’s MIL, and should be excluded.
`
`II.
`
`DR. GILCHRIST MAY NOT TESTIFY ABOUT PMP’S VEEV PRODUCT
`
`The Court similarly ruled that “evidence solely related to a request for an injunction will
`
`not be admissible.” Dkt. 1184-1 at 3. Reynolds nonetheless expects that PM/Altria may attempt
`
`to elicit such testimony regarding PMP’s VEEV product, which is related only to PMP’s request
`
`for an injunction. During discovery, PMP identified the VEEV product as relevant to its claim for
`
`injunctive relief, see Dkt. 709-4, but no expert relies on VEEV to address the issues of infringement
`
`and invalidity. Nor does VEEV support a claim that the parties are competitors for the purpose of
`
`damages. Unlike IQOS, the VEEV product (sometimes also called “IQOS VEEV”) has never
`
`been sold in the United States. PMP has never contended that VEEV practices any of the asserted
`
`patents. Additionally, any connection between VEEV and FDA’s PMTA Authorization of any
`
`other product would be purely speculative, and the Court already excluded such speculation. See
`
`Dkt. 1184-1 at 13 (excluding “irrelevant testimony” regarding “whether a device will or will not
`
`be granted FDA authorization”). Indeed, it is undisputed that PMP has not filed a PMTA for
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1289 Filed 06/07/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 32993
`
`VEEV. Accordingly, VEEV has no relevance to the issues, any minimal relevance would be
`
`substantially outweighed by the risk of juror confusion, and evidence solely related to PMP’s
`
`request for an injunction or about prospective FDA action is already excluded under the Court’s
`
`Orders. Dr. Gilchrist should not be permitted to testify about VEEV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Reynolds respectfully requests that the Court exclude any testimony from Dr. Gilchrist that
`
`goes beyond the narrow purpose of establishing the parties’ competitive relationship, as well as
`
`any testimony related to PMP’s VEEV product.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1289 Filed 06/07/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 32994
`
`Dated: June 7, 2022
`
`
`
`Stephanie E. Parker
`JONES DAY
`1221 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Suite 400
`Atlanta, GA 30361
`Telephone: (404) 521-3939
`Facsimile: (404) 581-8330
`Email: separker@jonesday.com
`
`
`Anthony M. Insogna
`JONES DAY
`4655 Executive Drive
`Suite 1500
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Telephone: (858) 314-1200
`Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
`Email: aminsogna@jonesday.com
`
`William E. Devitt
`JONES DAY
`77 West Wacker
`Suite 3500
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Telephone: (312) 269-4240
`Facsimile: (312) 782-8585
`Email: wdevitt@jonesday.com
`
`Sanjiv P. Laud
`JONES DAY
`90 South Seventh Street
`Suite 4950
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 217-8800
`Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
`Email: slaud@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ David M. Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana (VA Bar No. 42334)
`Ryan B. McCrum
`JONES DAY
`901 Lakeside Ave.
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`Telephone: (216) 586-3939
`Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
`Email: dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`Email: rbmccrum@jonesday.com
`
`John J. Normile
`JONES DAY
`250 Vesey Street
`New York, NY 10281
`Telephone: (212) 326-3939
`Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
`Email: jjnormile@jonesday.com
`
`
`Alexis A. Smith
`JONES DAY
`555 South Flower Street
`Fiftieth Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 243-2653
`Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
`Email: asmith@jonesday.com
`
`Charles B. Molster
`THE LAW OFFICES OF
`CHARLES B. MOLSTER, III PLLC
`2141 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Suite M
`Washington, DC 20007
`Telephone: (202) 787-1312
`Email: cmolster@molsterlaw.com
`
`Counsel for RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1289 Filed 06/07/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 32995
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 7th day of June, 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/ David M. Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana (VA Bar No. 42334)
`JONES DAY
`901 Lakeside Ave.
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`Telephone: (216) 586-3939
`Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
`Email: dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`Counsel for RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`
`
`
`
`