`
`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.
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PHILIP MORRIS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REYNOLDS FROM
`PRESENTING IMPROPER ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE ALTO’S MOUTHPIECE
`
`Philip Morris respectfully moves the Court in limine to preclude Reynolds from arguing or
`
`suggesting that if the jury finds that the black tip of the accused VUSE Alto product meets the
`
`“mouthpiece” limitation recited in the claims of the ’265 patent, they may find non-infringement
`
`with no further analysis.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’265 patent require (i) “a mouthpiece” and (ii) “a heating device,
`
`configured to be connected to the mouthpiece.” Reynolds, however, previewed at the charge
`
`conference an intent to tell the jury that they may find non-infringement by concluding that the
`
`black tip of the Alto meets the “mouthpiece” element. This is false, will mislead the jury, and is
`
`contrary to the Jury’s charge to evaluate infringement based on whether the accused product
`
`includes “each and every limitation set forth in a claim.”1 V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Grp. SpA,
`
`401 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`
`1 There is substantial record evidence, including the testimony of, e.g., Mr. Walbrink, Mr. Hunt,
`and Dr. Suhling, that the black tip is “configured to be connected” to the heater based on the plain
`language of the claims.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1356 Filed 06/14/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 33883
`
`Reynolds should thus be precluded from arguing or suggesting that the jury may find non-
`
`infringement solely based on concluding that the black tip meets the “mouthpiece” limitation.
`
`Dated: June 14, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Maximilian A. Grant
`Maximilian A. Grant (VSB No. 91792)
`max.grant@lw.com
`Lawrence J. Gotts (VSB No. 25337)
`lawrence.gotts@lw.com
`Matthew J. Moore (pro hac vice)
`matthew.moore@lw.com
`Jamie Underwood (pro hac vice)
`jamie.underwood@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 637-2200
`Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
`
`Clement J. Naples (pro hac vice)
`clement.naples@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`885 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022-4834
`Tel: (212) 906-1200; Fax: (212) 751-4864
`
`Gregory J. Sobolski (pro hac vice)
`greg.sobolski@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 391-0600
`Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Philip Morris Products
`S.A.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1356 Filed 06/14/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 33884
`
`
`
`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/ Maximilian A. Grant
`Maximilian A. Grant (VSB No. 91792)
`max.grant@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Ste. 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 637-2200; Fax: (202) 637-2201
`
`3
`
`