Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1347-1 Filed 06/13/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 33761
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1347-1 Filed 06/13/22 Page 1 of 6 PagelD# 33761
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1347-1 Filed 06/13/22 Page 1 of 6 PagelD# 33761
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1347-1 Filed 06/13/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 33762
`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`Civil Action
`No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`June 10, 2022
`9:13 a.m.
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC,
`et al.,
`Plaintiffs,
`v.
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC.,
`et al.,
`Defendants.
`
` DAY 2 - MORNING SESSION
`TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEONIE M. BRINKEMA,
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiffs:
`
`Maximilian Antony Grant, Esq.
`Latham & Watkins LLP (DC)
`555 11th Street, NW
`Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-1304
`202-637-2200
`Email: Max.grant@lw.com
`Clement Joseph Naples, Esq.
`Latham & Watkins, LLP
`885 Third Avenue 25th Floor
`New York, NY 10022
`212-906-1200
`Email: Dement.naples@lw.com
`Gregory K. Sobolski, Esq.
`Latham & Watkins, LLP
`505 Montgomery Street
`Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
`202-637-2267
`Email: Max.grant@lw.com
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1347-1 Filed 06/13/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 33763
`
`91
`
`Q.
`Okay. And the examiner, just to the right of that,
`that's Elliott S. Ruddie. Do you see that?
`A.
`I do.
`Q.
`And just under that, Number 3, it says, "Primary, Lynne
`Anderson." Do you see that?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Now, "primary examiner," that means senior examiner at
`the Patent Office. Do you understand that?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Now, examiners at the Patent Office like Mr. Ruddie and
`Ms. Anderson have expertise in the art of the patent application
`they're reviewing, right?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`So we can safely assume that the '911 Patent examiners
`here have expertise in the art of the '911 Patent, right?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`And because they have expertise in the '911 Patent's art,
`we can assume that examiners understand the '911 Patent's
`claims, right?
`A.
`Yes.
`MR. SOBOLSKI: Well, let's go to page 4 -- I'm sorry, page
`5. And blow up on the screen so the jury can see the part that
`says "the examiner suggested structure" -- and can we bring that
`up, Mr. Smith, blow up that part of it so we can all see it.
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1347-1 Filed 06/13/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 33764
`
`96
`
`about, right?
`A.
`Well, in the application it says "toroid," and here it
`said "toroidal." It's talking about a toroidal shape.
`Q.
`Let's bring up that language from Claim 13, Mr. Kodama.
`All right. Now let's put up Figure 6 of the '911 Patent
`that we were just looking at. Do you see that?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Now, that's exactly what Figure 6 of the '911 Patent
`shows, right, "the at least one cavity is a blind hole has a
`toroidal shape," correct?
`A.
`That's Figure 6, but I would not call that a blind hole.
`Based upon my experience in the industry, that is not a blind
`hole. That would be what we call an annular groove.
`Q.
`It's just not what the examiners called it, right?
`A.
`Well, unfortunately, I believe the examiners might have
`used the wrong wording there. They actually used "blind cavity"
`instead of "blind hole." In industry, we would not call that
`area shaded in yellow a blind hole, it would be an annular
`groove or some other shape.
`Q.
`In other words, you think the experts got it wrong.
`A.
`I think they might have chosen the wrong wording in their
`reply, yes.
`Q.
`Let's talk about the shape of the Alto device.
`MR. SOBOLSKI: We can take that down.
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1347-1 Filed 06/13/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 33765
`111
`
`A.
`That's correct.
`Q.
`In fact, the Han reference doesn't have any specific
`dimensions, right?
`A.
`That's correct.
`Q.
`None, right?
`A.
`That's correct.
`Q.
`Okay. And then you also talk about the Xia reference,
`right?
`A.
`Yes.
`MR. SOBOLSKI: Let's bring Xia up. I think it's RX 369.
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`Q.
`Now, you're not -- do you have it, sir?
`A.
`I'm trying to find it.
`Q.
`Take your time, please.
`A.
`I'm sorry.
`Q.
`Do you have it?
`A.
`Yes, I have it.
`Q.
`Now, you aren't the first person to consider the '911
`Patent in view of Xia, correct?
`A.
`That's correct.
`Q.
`In fact, Xia is one of those references that the Patent
`Office examiner already considered before allowing the '911
`Patent, right?
`A.
`Yes, it was in the file history of the patent.
`Q.
`The examiners actually considered Xia before allowing the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1347-1 Filed 06/13/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 33766
`112
`
`'911 Patent, right?
`MR. MAIORANA: Objection, Your Honor. Foundation.
`{Indiscernible} considered.
`THE COURT: As long as it's in the prosecution history, we
`would know that the examiner had, in fact, looked at it.
`MR. MAIORANA: We don't know that, Your Honor. All we
`know is it's in the pile of materials. We don't know if that
`examiner looked at that specific patent. There's no evidence of
`that in the record.
`THE COURT: Do you want to respond to that? It's in the
`history. I'm going to accept the fact that it was considered by
`the Patent Office, over your objection. Overruled.
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`Q.
`Okay, Mr. Kodama, let's resume our discussion about this
`see Xia reference, which we have here as RX 369.
`Now, the examiner considered Xia before allowing the '911
`Patent claims, right?
`A.
`Yes, Xia was in the file history.
`Q.
`But you think the examiner just got it totally wrong,
`right?
`A.
`Totally wrong with regard to regarding Xia?
`Q.
`With regards to allowing the '911 Patent claims to issue
`despite considering Xia.
`A.
`I believe that the claim of Xia with the second cavity
`was perhaps not considered.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
