`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1353-2 Filed 06/14/22 Page 1 of 5 PagelD# 33872
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1353-2 Filed 06/14/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 33873
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393-LMB-TCB
`
`
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,814,265 (Compact Heater)
`I.
`Question 1 – Literal Infringement: Do you find that Philip Morris has proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that Reynolds has literally infringed any of the following claims
`of the ’265 Patent?
`VUSE Alto
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`Claim 1
`(independent)
`
`Claim 4
`(dependent)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`Question 2 – Infringement by the Doctrine of Equivalents: Do you find that Philip Morris
`has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Reynolds infringed by the doctrine of
`equivalents any of the following claims of the ’265 Patent?
`VUSE Alto
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`Claim 1
`(independent)
`
`Claim 4
`(dependent)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1353-2 Filed 06/14/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 33874
`
`Answer Question 3 below only if you have found at least one claim of the ’265 Patent is
`infringed. If there are no such claims, move on to Part II.
`
`Question 3 – Damages: What sum of money, if any, did Philip Morris prove by a
`preponderance of the evidence would be adequate compensation for Reynolds’s infringement of
`the ’265 patent. Provide the amount below in dollars and cents. If you find Philip Morris is
`entitled to no damages, enter a “0” amount.
`
`$_______________________________
`(Running Royalty for Past Infringement of the ’265 Patent through December 31, 2021)
`
`
`II.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,104,911 (Leakage Preventer)
`
`Question 1 – Literal Infringement: Do you find that Philip Morris has proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that Reynolds has literally infringed any of the following claims
`of the ’911 Patent with respect to any of the following products?
`
`
`VUSE Solo G2
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`(independent)
`Claim 11
`(dependent)
`Claim 13
`(dependent)
`
`
`
`VUSE Alto
`
`Claim 1
`(independent)
`Claim 2
`(dependent)
`Claim 11
`(dependent)
`Claim 12
`(dependent)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1353-2 Filed 06/14/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 33875
`
`Question 2 – Infringement by the Doctrine of Equivalents: Do you find that Philip Morris
`has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Reynolds has infringed by the doctrine of
`equivalents any of the following claims of the ’911 Patent with respect to VUSE Alto only?
`
`
`VUSE Alto
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`(independent)
`Claim 2
`(dependent)
`Claim 11
`(dependent)
`Claim 12
`(dependent)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`
`Question 3 – Invalidity: Do you find that Reynolds has proven by clear and convincing
`evidence that any of the following claims of the ’911 Patent are invalid as obvious?
`
`Claim 1
`(independent)
`Claim 2
`(dependent)
`Claim 11
`(dependent)
`Claim 12
`(dependent)
`
`Claim 13
`(dependent)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1353-2 Filed 06/14/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 33876
`
`Answer Question 4 below only if you have found at least one claim of the ’911 Patent is
`infringed and not invalid. If there are no such claims, you have completed your
`deliberations and the foreperson should sign this verdict form.
`
`Question 4 – Damages: What sum of money, if any, did Philip Morris prove by a
`preponderance of the evidence would be adequate compensation for Reynolds’s infringement of
`the ’911 patent. Provide the amount below in dollars and cents. If you find Philip Morris is
`entitled to no damages, enter a “0” amount.
`
`$_______________________________
`(Running Royalty for Past Infringement of the ’911 Patent through December 31, 2021)
`
`
`
`
`
`Please sign the form below.
`
`
`
`Jury Foreperson (signed): ________________________
`
`Foreperson’s Name (printed): ______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: _________________
`
`4
`
`
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
