`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1328-1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 1 of 3 PagelD# 33587
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1328-1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 33588
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT PROPOSED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS [REYNOLDS EDITS, AND
`PMI/ALTRIA FURTHER EDITS, AND REYNOLDS FURTHER EDITS]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1328-1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 33589
`
`63.47. Damages – Lump Sum vs. Running Royalty – PROPOSEDDISPUTED
`[PMI/ALTRIA ONLY PROPOSAL]
`
`A reasonable royalty can be paid either in the form of a one-time lump sum payment or as
`
`a “running royalty.” Either method is designed to compensate the patent holder based on the
`
`infringer’s use of the patented technology. It is up to you, based on the evidence, to decide what
`
`type of royalty is appropriate in this case. Certain fundamental differences exist between lump-
`
`sum agreements and running-royalty agreements.53
`
`
`
`Authorities:
`
`FCBA Model Patent Jury Instructions, No. 5.7 (2020); Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580
`F.3d 1301, 1329-30 (Fed. Circ. 2009).
`
`
`
`
`
`53 Reynolds objects to this instruction as irrelevant to the issues at trial and likely to confuse the
`jury. If the Court concludes that the instruction should be given, Reynolds requests that a line be
`added to the verdict form instructing the jury to fill in the lump sum damages award (if any) that
`they find PMI/Altria have proven.
`
`70
`
`