Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1352 Filed 06/14/22 Page 1 of 16 PageID# 33788
`
`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-LMB-TCB
`
`
`REYNOLDS’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
`RULE 50(a) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OF
`INVALIDITY OF ’911 PATENT
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1352 Filed 06/14/22 Page 2 of 16 PageID# 33789
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Judgment as a Matter of Law ................................................................................. 1
`B.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................................... 2
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Independent Claim 1 .............................................................................................. 4
`B.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................................................ 7
`C.
`Dependent Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 9
`D.
`Dependent Claim 12 .............................................................................................. 9
`E.
`Dependent Claim 13 ............................................................................................ 10
`F.
`Philip Morris Presented No Evidence of Secondary Considerations ................... 10
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 11
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1352 Filed 06/14/22 Page 3 of 16 PageID# 33790
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. of Ohio, Inc.,
`6 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 1993) .........................................................................................................2
`
`KSR Int’l, Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...........................................................................................................2, 3, 7
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship,
`564 U.S. 91 (2011) .....................................................................................................................2
`
`Myrick v. Prime Ins. Syndicate, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 485 (4th Cir. 2005) .....................................................................................................1
`
`Price v. City of Charlotte, N.C.,
`93 F.3d 1241 (4th Cir. 1996) .....................................................................................................1
`
`SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys.,
`769 F.3d 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................2
`
`SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs.,
`709 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................1
`
`Wilhelm v. Blue Bell, Inc.,
`773 F.2d 1429 (4th Cir. 1985) ...................................................................................................2
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................2
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................................................2
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 .............................................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1352 Filed 06/14/22 Page 4 of 16 PageID# 33791
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Reynolds respectfully requests that the Court grant its Rule 50(a) Motion for Judgment as
`
`a Matter of Law of Invalidity of the ’911 Patent. Reynolds moves at this time, after it has been
`
`“fully heard” on invalidity, but “before the case is submitted to the jury,” in order to preserve this
`
`issue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(2). However, Reynolds recognizes that the Court may reserve its
`
`ruling “for a post-verdict decision,” “because a jury verdict for the moving party moots the issue.”
`
`In these circumstances, “it is not inappropriate for the moving party to suggest such a
`
`postponement of the ruling until after the verdict has been rendered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50,
`
`Advisory Committee Notes to 1991 Amendment. Judgment as a matter of law of invalidity is
`
`warranted, but in the interest of conserving the Court’s and the parties’ resources, Reynolds
`
`suggests that the Court postpone ruling on its motion until after the jury has rendered its verdict.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`A.
`
`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`
`Judgment as matter of law is appropriate “[i]f a party has been fully heard on an issue
`
`during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient
`
`evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). In a patent case, the
`
`law of the regional circuit governs a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50.
`
`SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., 709 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Court must enter
`
`judgment as a matter of law if “a reasonable jury could reach only one conclusion based on the
`
`evidence or if the verdict in favor of the nonmoving party would necessarily be based upon
`
`speculation and conjecture.” Myrick v. Prime Ins. Syndicate, Inc., 395 F.3d 485, 489 (4th Cir.
`
`2005). The Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, see
`
`id. at 490, and it may not make credibility determinations, Price v. City of Charlotte, N.C., 93 F.3d
`
`1241, 1249–50 (4th Cir. 1996). Even so, a “‘mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient’” to create
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1352 Filed 06/14/22 Page 5 of 16 PageID# 33792
`
`
`a jury question, and inferences to support a jury’s verdict “‘must be reasonably probable.”
`
`Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. of Ohio, Inc., 6 F.3d 243, 248
`
`(4th Cir. 1993) (quoting Lust v. Clark Equipment Co., 792 F.2d 436, 437 (4th Cir. 1986)). There
`
`must be “substantial evidence in the record to support” a jury finding for the nonmovant. Wilhelm
`
`v. Blue Bell, Inc., 773 F.2d 1429, 1433 (4th Cir. 1985).
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness
`
`“A patent claim is invalid as obvious if the claimed invention as a whole would have been
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” SSL Servs., LLC
`
`v. Citrix Sys., 769 F.3d 1073, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A patent claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 if the differences between the subject matter claimed and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”). KSR Int’l, Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). “Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying findings of fact,” including: “(1)
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at
`
`issue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) any relevant secondary considerations . . . .”
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Graham v. John Deere
`
`Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966)). A patent challenger must prove invalidity by clear-and-convincing
`
`Where “the PTO did not have all material facts before it. . . the challenger’s burden to persuade
`
`the jury of its invalidity defense by clear and convincing evidence may be easier to sustain.”
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 111 (2011).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`At trial, Reynolds presented clear and convincing evidence through its expert Mr. Kelly
`
`Kodama that the asserted claims are invalid as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 8,156, 944 (“Han”)
`
`(RX-972), combined with WO 0139619 (“Shizumu”) (RX-1224), WO 2009/135729 (“Murphy”)
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1352 Filed 06/14/22 Page 6 of 16 PageID# 33793
`
`
`(RX-1422), and CA 2641869 (“Xia”) in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSA”).1
`
`The ’911 Patent “relates to an aerosol generating system” and “[i]n particular, the present
`
`invention relates to an aerosol generating system in which the aerosol-forming substrate is liquid.”
`
`’911 Patent, 1:9-12. According to the ’911 Patent: “As known to those skilled in the art, an aerosol
`
`is a suspension of solid particles or liquid droplets in a gas, such as air.” ’911 Patent, 1:44-46.
`
`The ’911 Patent teaches “an aerosol generating system for heating a liquid aerosol-forming
`
`substrate, the system comprising: an aerosol-forming chamber; and leakage prevention means
`
`configured to prevent or reduce leakage of liquid aerosol condensate from the aerosol generating
`
`system.” ’911 Patent, 1:32-37. The ’911 Patent claims that “[a]n advantage of the [alleged]
`
`invention is that leakage of liquid aerosol condensate from the aerosol generating system is
`
`prevented or at least substantially reduced.” Philip Morris’s expert Dr. John Abraham agreed that
`
`Han, Reynolds’s primary reference, was “trying to solve the same problem”—leakage—as the
`
`’911 Patent. See 6/13/22 Tr. (AM) 85:17-25 (Abraham).2 As the Supreme Court explained in
`
`KSR, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
`
`the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is
`
`likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” 550 U.S. at 402-03.
`
`All of the asserted claims’ limitations (as well as unasserted claim 1) were disclosed in Han
`
`in combination with Shizumu, Murphy, and Xia in view of the knowledge of a POSA. A POSA
`
`
`1 There is no dispute that those references were prior art as of the priority date of the ’911 Patent
`(December 3, 2010), and there is no material dispute regarding the definition of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art. See 6/10/22 Tr. 18:5-23 (Kodama); 6/8/22 Tr. (PM) 29:4-22 (Abraham).
`
` Transcript excerpts are attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1352 Filed 06/14/22 Page 7 of 16 PageID# 33794
`
`
`would have seen the benefit of combining or modifying elements of the prior art, and would have
`
`had a reasonable expectation of success. The expert testimony that Philip Morris offered to rebut
`
`Reynolds’s obviousness showing was conclusory and contrary to the prior art’s disclosure and the
`
`knowledge of a POSA in 2010. Further, Philip Morris introduced no evidence of secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. Therefore, Reynolds respectfully requests that the Court grant
`
`judgment of invalidity as a matter of law for each asserted claim of the ’911 Patent, as well as for
`
`unasserted independent claim 1.
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Independent claim 1 recites (with subparts labeled in bracketed letters for ease of
`
`reference):
`
`An aerosol generating system for heating a liquid aerosol-forming substrate, the system
`comprising:
`[a] an aerosol-forming chamber; and
`[b] leakage prevention means configured to prevent or reduce leakage of liquid aerosol
`condensate from the aerosol generating system, wherein the leakage prevention
`means comprises at least one cavity in a wall of the aerosol-forming chamber, for
`collecting liquid condensate formed from the aerosol-forming substrate; and
`[c] 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
`[d] 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.
`
`
`’911 Pat. 18:12-30. None of that was new. Indeed, Philip Morris’s expert Dr. Abraham conceded
`
`at trial that he offered no opinions to the jury about the validity of Claim 1 subparts a, b, or c which
`
`“are colored in gray” in one of his demonstratives:
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1352 Filed 06/14/22 Page 8 of 16 PageID# 33795
`
`
`
`
`
` See 6/13/22 Tr. (AM) 82:2-10; Ex. 1 (slide). Han disclosed every limitation of claim 1 except for
`
`subpart [d], which was rendered obvious in view of in Shizumu and which a POSA would have
`
`had motivation to combine with Han.
`
`Preamble. Reynolds’s expert Kelly Kodama testified that Han disclosed an aerosol-
`
`generating system for heating a liquid aerosol-forming substrate. 6/10/22 Tr. 58:8-14; 59:7-12;
`
`see Han (Abstract).
`
`
`
`1a. Mr. Kodama further testified that Han disclosed an aerosol-forming chamber.
`
`6/10/22 Tr. 59:20-60:3; see Han Fig. 1.
`
`1b. Mr. Kodama testified that Han disclosed all of the requirements of Claim 1[b].
`
`6/10/22 Tr. 60:4-7. In particular, he testified that Han “is discussing and disclosing a way to
`
`capture condensate” and discloses leakage prevention means. 6/10/22 Tr. 60:9-17. Further,
`
`“there’s a cavity there that’s surrounding the mouthpiece air hole, and that’s what’s designed to
`
`capture the condensate.” 6/10/22 Tr. 60:19-24. “[T]hat cavity is designed to capture the
`
`condensate.” 6/10/22 Tr. 61:3-4. And Mr. Kodama agreed that “the cavity collects liquid
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1352 Filed 06/14/22 Page 9 of 16 PageID# 33796
`
`
`condensate formed from the aerosol-forming substrate.” 6/10/22 Tr. 61:7-9; see Han at 4:19-28
`
`(“the fine drips are condensed into bigger drips, which all along the exterior wall of the air channel
`
`into the cavity of the shell of the cigarette bottle assembly”).
`
`1c. Mr. Kodama testified that even assuming that Philip Morris’s expert was correct
`
`that the ’911 Patent’s “annular groove” is the same as the claimed “blind hole,” Figure 1 of the
`
`Han Patent reveals a blind hole. 6/10/22 Tr. 61:22-62:5. And, Mr. Kodama explained, if Han’s
`
`cavity is considered a blind hole, the blind hole has an open end and a closed end as required by
`
`the claim. 6/10/22 Tr. 62:6-16. Further, if Han’s cavity is a blind hole, then it has “a longitudinal
`
`direction extending between the open end and the closed end.” 6/10/22 Tr. 63:8-63:17; see Han
`
`Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`1d.
`
`It is undisputed by Philip Morris’s witnesses that the diameter of the largest cross-
`
`sectional dimension of 0.5 mm and 1 mm was the only limitation not disclosed in Han. See 6/13/22
`
`Tr. (AM) 82:2-10 (Abraham).
`
`Mr. Kodama testified that another reference, Shizumu, “discloses a preferable outer
`
`diameter for the device of 7 to 15 millimeters,” in order to make it more portable and “make the
`
`device sort of replace cigarettes, meaning to look like … an actual cigarette.” 6/10/22 Tr. 65:9-
`
`13. A POSA, as Mr. Kodama explained, would know that after starting with an outer diameter of
`
`7 mm, then adding outer walls, inner walls, and mouth hole, “it would be obvious to end up with
`
`a dimensional range for the cavity or the blind hole of 0.5 or 1 mm.” 6/10/22 Tr. 64:18-65:1.
`
`Mr. Kodama further testified that a POSA would have been motivated to combine Shizumu
`
`with Han in order to create a cig-a-like product, which “were trying to sort of simulate or look like
`
`cigarettes, so they had a similar diameter and a similar look.” See 6/10/22 Tr. 64:8-65:1. The cig-
`
`alike products were desirable in 2010. See 6/10/22 Tr. 64:10-13. To create a “similar look” and
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1352 Filed 06/14/22 Page 10 of 16 PageID# 33797
`
`
`“similar diameter” cig-a-like product using Han’s disclosure, a POSA would look to Shizumu,
`
`which has similar outer dimensions of a cigarette and which itself seeks to make the device more
`
`portable and to look like an actual cigarette. See 6/10/22 Tr. 64:8-65:18. A POSA would have
`
`expected success because the diameter of an e-cigarette was a matter of limited design choice, id.,
`
`and where a skilled artisan merely pursues “known options” from “a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions,” the resulting invention is obvious. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
`
`Dr. Abraham did not contest that e-cigarettes in the art had outer diameters of 7 mm.
`
`6/13/22 Tr. (PM) 91:8-11. Nor did he contest that with such an outer diameter, there would be
`
`only so much space inside of the device for the internal structure. 6/13/22 Tr. (PM) 91:12-15.
`
`Moreover, Dr. Abraham agreed that “the small space inside the e-cigarette is going to limit the
`
`sizes of the internal components that you can fit in there.” 6/13/22 Tr. (PM) 91:16-19. So too
`
`with “the mouth end,” where Dr. Abraham agreed that “you also have to make room for the outlet
`
`for the vapor.” 6/13/22 Tr. (PM) 91:20-22. When counsel for Reynolds asked whether “that’s
`
`going to leave you with even less room for the internal structures around the mouth end of these
`
`devices,” Dr. Abraham responded: “It might.” 6/13/22 Tr. (PM) 91:23-92:1. Dr. Abraham
`
`nevertheless opined that a POSA would not have modified Han with a leakage prevention cavity
`
`of 0.5 to 1 millimeters. 6/13/22 Tr. (PM) 92:2-8. No reasonable jury could have credited that
`
`conclusory and unsupported opinion.
`
`B.
`
`Dependent Claim 2
`
`Dependent claim 2 requires “the aerosol generating system according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the at least one cavity contains capillary material.” Mr. Kodama testified that capillary material
`
`“means a material that would be sort of spongelike, a material that would actually absorb material
`
`inside the cavity.” 6/10/22 Tr. 67:25-68:5. Han does not teach this limitation, but Murphy does.
`
`6/10/22 Tr. 68:9-14. See Murphy at 2:5-9 (“absorbent pad”). Murphy is “an aerosol-generating
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1352 Filed 06/14/22 Page 11 of 16 PageID# 33798
`
`
`system … there’s an absorb[e]nt pad … which could be a capillary material, and that’s inside
`
`what’s called the second passageway in the patent and that’s a cavity. So it discloses an absorb[e]nt
`
`pad or capillary material inside of the cavity.” 6/10/22 Tr. 68:18-24; see Murphy 6:10-15. “The
`
`purpose of the capillary material – again, it’s like a sponge – is to collect and trap condensate.”
`
`6/10/22 Tr. 69:2-4.
`
`What is more, Murphy discloses that the capillary material maybe made of “a cellulose
`
`acetate,” which Mr. Kodama explained is “used in cigarette filters, so it would be a material that
`
`would be very common to designers or engineers of electronic cigarettes.” 6/10/22 Tr. 69:12-15;
`
`see Murphy 6:10-15. The ’911 Patent also “mentions the one material being cellulose acetate,
`
`similar to Murphy.” 6/10/22 Tr. 69:18-19. See ’911 Patent 2:32-49.
`
`Mr. Kodama testified that a POSA would have been “motivated to add Murphy’s capillary
`
`material to the cavity in [Han’s] electronic cigarette.” 6/10/22 Tr. 69:20-70:1. That is because
`
`“Han has some liquid prevention method … but the addition of an absorb[e]nt material or capillary
`
`material would provide additional storage or prevention of leakage.” 6/10/22 Tr. 69:23-70:1. Mr.
`
`Kodama further explained that a POSA would have expected to succeed in using Murphy’s
`
`capillary material in Han’s e-cigarette because “adding absorb[e]nt materials or capillary materials
`
`is common in industry.” 6/10/22 Tr. 70:2-5. For instance, Mr. Kodama testified that when he was
`
`designing e-cigarettes, “we often looked at multiple ways to try and prevent leakage because it is
`
`a big problem, so we would look at capillary materials as well as things like cavities, annular
`
`grooves, et cetera.” 6/10/22 Tr. 70:4-8.
`
`Philip Morris’s expert Mr. Abraham did not rebut any of this evidence. Instead, when
`
`asked about claim 2, he conclusorily opined about the purportedly missing dimensions from only
`
`claim 1, and never addressed Reynolds’s evidence that claim 2’s “capillary material” limitation
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1352 Filed 06/14/22 Page 12 of 16 PageID# 33799
`
`
`was obvious. See 6/13/22 Tr. 78:7-16.
`
`C.
`
`Dependent Claim 11
`
`Dependent claim 11 recites “the aerosol generating system according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the aerosol generating system is electrically operated and further comprises an electric heater for
`
`heating the liquid aerosol-forming substrate.” Mr. Kodama testified that Han disclosed an electric
`
`heater: “Han calls it an electric heating rod … but it’s the same thing, yeah, as an electric heater.”
`
`6/10/22 Tr. 66:9-12; see Han 6:1-7 (“electric heating rod”) and Fig. 1. Mr. Kodama opined that
`
`Claim 11 would have been obvious to a POSA. 6/10/22 Tr. 66:13-15. Mr. Abraham did not rebut
`
`Mr. Kodama’s opinions about Han’s disclosure, and instead again based his rebuttal solely on his
`
`opinions about claim 1. See 6/13/22 Tr. (AM) 79:1-16.
`
`D.
`
`Dependent Claim 12
`
`Dependent claim 12 recites: “The aerosol generating system according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the leakage prevention means comprises two cavities in the wall of the aerosol-forming chamber.”
`
`Mr. Kodama testified that Han disclosed only one cavity. 6/10/22 Tr. 60:12-15; see Han Fig. 1.
`
`But he explained that another prior art reference, Xia, discloses “multiple cavities to try to prevent
`
`leakage.” 6/10/22 Tr. 70:18-20; see Xia Fig. 5. Mr. Kodama explained that Xia has “multiple
`
`cavities, so there’s two different items, one that’s similar to what you’ve seen in the figures or …
`
`911 …, which is the liquid blocking cover, -- you can see those yellow cavities that are highlighted
`
`there … where it’s the liquid blocking groove. So it’s an additional feature that’s designed for
`
`leakage prevention.” 6/10/22 Tr. 71:12-21.
`
`In Mr. Kodama’s experience designing e-cigarettes, he would use a “tortuous path,” or path
`
`to force the aerosol traverse to avoid leakage. 6/10/22 Tr. 71:22-72:1. It therefore would have
`
`been obvious to add multiple cavities to Han, and in Kodama’s experience designing e-cigarettes,
`
`they did “add[] these kinds of features … multiple ways to prevent leakage.” 6/10/22 Tr. 72:10-
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1352 Filed 06/14/22 Page 13 of 16 PageID# 33800
`
`
`12.
`
`Mr. Kodama testified that a POSA would be motivated to combine Xia with Han because
`
`“the more cavities you have, potentially you would have more leakage prevention means.” 6/10/22
`
`Tr. 72:13-16. A POSA would further expect success: “the right-hand side of Xia looks similar to
`
`Han, and so adding the cavities on the left-hand side of the image would be common place in the
`
`industry.” 6/10/22 Tr. 72:19-21.
`
`Dr. Abraham again did not rebut this evidence, indeed, he called himself a “broken record”
`
`for repeating that he challenged only the combination for claim 1 rather than for dependent claim
`
`12’s two cavities. See 6/13/22 Tr. 79:17-80:4.
`
`E.
`
`Dependent Claim 13
`
`Dependent claim 13 recites: “The aerosol generating system according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the leakage prevention means comprising the at least one cavity in the wall of the aerosol-forming
`
`chamber has a toroidal shape.” Mr. Kodama opined that Claim 13 would have been obvious to a
`
`POSA. 6/10/22 Tr. 67:19-21.
`
`Mr. Kodama testified that Han’s cavity could be a toroidal shape. See 6/13/22 Tr. 67:10-
`
`18. Han’s figures “show[] the device as being round,” so the cavity would be similar to what is
`
`shown in Figures 5 and 6 of the 911 patent, “and that would be interpreted to be a cavity” even
`
`under Philip Morris’s interpretation of an annular groove being a “blind hole.” 6/10/22 Tr. 67:13-
`
`18.
`
`Dr. Abraham once more did not rebut this evidence, and instead opined that “[a]s with the
`
`other claims, if you combine them, you don’t have the dimensions.” 6/13/22 Tr. 80:15-18.
`
`F.
`
`Philip Morris Presented No Evidence of Secondary Considerations
`
`Philip Morris presented no evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness with
`
`a sufficient nexus to claimed features that are not found in the prior art, so it cannot overcome
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1352 Filed 06/14/22 Page 14 of 16 PageID# 33801
`
`
`Reynolds’s strong showing obviousness for each asserted claim and independent claim 1.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Reynolds respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion
`
`for judgment as a matter of law of invalidity of the ’911 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1352 Filed 06/14/22 Page 15 of 16 PageID# 33802
`
`
`Dated: June 14, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1352 Filed 06/14/22 Page 16 of 16 PageID# 33803
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 14th 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
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`