Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1302 Filed 06/08/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 33272
`
`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 NOTICE OF FILING REVISED PROPOSED VERDICT FORM AND
`ADDITIONAL FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Orders of June 6, 2022 (Dkt. 1271) and June 8, 2022 (Dkt. 1300),
`
`Defendants RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively
`
`“Reynolds”) respectfully submit the following documents.
`
`1.
`
`Reynolds’s Revised Proposed Verdict Form (Exhibit 1). As requested by the Court,
`
`Reynolds attaches a revised proposed verdict form as Exhibit 1 that reflects the changes to the
`
`claims identified in Plaintiffs’ notice, Dkt. 1261. In addition, Reynolds’s revised proposed verdict
`
`form reflects the dismissal of the infringement claims for the ’374 and ’545 patents (Dkt. 1300)
`
`and the change to the case caption discussed on the record at trial.
`
`In addition to these changes, Reynolds has revised its proposed verdict-form questions on
`
`damages to reflect the withdrawal of its objection to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Final Instruction No. 47,
`
`“Lump Sum vs. Running Royalty.” See Dkt. 1204-1 at 59; see also id. n.6 (Reynolds’s request
`
`that “a line be added to the verdict form instructing the jury to fill in the lump sum damages award
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1302 Filed 06/08/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 33273
`
`(if any)” in the event Plaintiffs’ instruction is given). These revisions (a) adopt language proposed
`
`by Plaintiffs on damages from their proposed verdict form (see Dkt. 1204-3 at 6); (b) omit a
`
`limitation for the jury to award damages “for any past infringement”; and (c) add an additional line
`
`for lump sum damages as an alternative to damages based on a running royalty. Reynolds requests
`
`these changes to avoid any uncertainty about the form of the damages awarded by the jury, if it
`
`reaches these questions. We expect that the jury will hear evidence about assertedly relevant lump-
`
`sum license agreements. Based on that evidence, the jury could award a one-time or lump-sum
`
`award encompassing both past and future damages, even though neither party’s expert proposes
`
`such a form of damages. See Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2014),
`
`overruled on other grounds by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(“[I]f the record evidence does not fully support either party’s royalty estimate, the fact finder must
`
`still determine what constitutes a reasonable royalty from the record evidence.”). As Philip
`
`Morris’s proposed instruction makes clear, “[i]t is up to you [the jury], based on the evidence, to
`
`decide what type of royalty is appropriate in this case.” Dkt. 1204-1 at 59.
`
`Reynolds respectfully submits that the Court should adopt instructions and verdict-form
`
`questions that minimize the risk of confusion or uncertainty after trial. See, e.g., Whitserve, LLC
`
`v. Computer Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10, 35 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The jury’s verdict did not indicate
`
`that the award was meant to cover future use of WhitServe’s patents . . . .”); Telcordia Techs., Inc.
`
`v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is unclear whether the jury based
`
`its award on a lump-sum, paid-up license, running royalty, some variation or combination of the
`
`two, or some other theory.”). Reynolds’s proposed verdict-form questions on damages, in
`
`combination with the instructions discussed next, help to achieve that goal.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1302 Filed 06/08/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 33274
`
`2.
`
`Reynolds’s Additional Proposed Final Jury Instructions (Exhibit 2). Reynolds also
`
`attaches two modified final instructions with additional instructions identified in italicized font.
`
`Proposed Final Instruction No. 47 (we have retained the numbering from the original joint set of
`
`Final Instructions) withdraws Reynolds’s objection to Plaintiffs’ proposed instruction on “Lump
`
`Sum vs. Running Royalty” and proposes two paragraphs defining “lump sum payment” and
`
`“running royalty.” These additional instructions are drawn directly from FCBA Model Patent Jury
`
`Instruction No. 5.7. These instructions are necessary to explain the distinction between lump-sum
`
`payments and running-royalty damages to avoid the risk of uncertainty and confusion after trial,
`
`as noted above.
`
`Proposed Final Instruction No. 20 adds a new paragraph on the significance of independent
`
`versus dependent claims to the jury’s verdict on direct infringement. This instruction too is drawn
`
`directly from the FCBA model instructions. Reynolds inadvertently omitted this instruction from
`
`the joint set previously submitted to the Court, and it is a necessary instruction given the mix of
`
`independent and dependent claims still at issue in the case for the ’265 and ’911 patents.
`
`Last, Reynolds withdraws its proposed instruction, which Plaintiffs objected to, that “You
`
`also may not award damages for any future losses PMI/Altria may incur,” as part of Proposed Final
`
`Instruction No. 44 (Damages – Generally). Dkt. 1204-1 at 55.
`
`
`
` .
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1302 Filed 06/08/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 33275
`
`Dated: June 8, 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 1302 Filed 06/08/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 33276
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 8th 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
`
`
`
`
`
`