`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1361 Filed 06/15/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 33943
`153943
`
`COURT
`
`
`CETEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
`
`RK,U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIADIVISION
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393-LMB-TCB
`
`Plaintiff,
`om
`
`Vv.
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
` PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTSS.A.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`VERDICTFORM
`
`I.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO.9,814,265 (Compact Heater)
`
`Question 1 — Literal Infringement: Do youfind that Philip Morris has proven by a
`preponderanceof the evidence that Reynolds hasliterally infringed any of the following claims
`of the °265 Patent?
`
`VUSEAlto
`
`Claim 1
`
`(independent)
`
`Claim 4
`(dependent)
`
`Vv
`
`Yes
`
`V
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`No
`
`~~Question 2 — Infringement by the Doctrine of Equivalents: Do you find that Philip Morris
`. hasproven by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Reynolds infringed by the doctrine of
`equivalentsany of the following claims ofthe ’265 Patent?
`VUSEAlto
`
`Claim 1
`(independent)
`
`Claim 4
`(dependent)
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`No
`
`
`
`,Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1361 Filed 06/15/22 Page 2 of 4 PagelD# 33944
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1361 Filed 06/15/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 33944
`
`Answer Question 3 below only if you have foundatleast one claim of the ’265 Patentis
`infringed. If there are no such claims, move on to Part II.
`
`Question 3 - Damages: What sum of moneydid Philip Morris prove by a preponderanceofthe
`evidence would be adequate compensation for Reynolds’s infringementof the ’265 patent.
`Provide the amount below in dollars and cents.
`
`ie (eal Fron
`$
`(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 youfind that Philip Morris has proven by a
`preponderanceofthe evidence that Reynoldshas literally infringed any of the following claims
`of the °91] Patent with respect to any of the following products?
`
`VUSESolo G2
`
`Claim 1
`(independent)
`Claim 11
`(dependent)
`
`Claim 13
`(dependent)
`
`VUSEAlto
`
`Claim 1
`(independent)
`Claim 2
`
`(dependent)
`
`Claim 11
`(dependent)
`
`Claim 12
`(dependent)
`
`V
`JV
`
`V
`
`Yes
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`No
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`V
`vi
`
`/
`
`\/
`
`
`
`,Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1361 Filed 06/15/22 Page 3 of 4 PagelD# 33945
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1361 Filed 06/15/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 33945
`
`Question 2 — Infringement by the Doctrine of Equivalents: Do you find that Philip Morris
`has proven by a preponderanceofthe evidence that Reynoldshas infringed by the doctrine of
`equivalents any of the following claims of the °911 Patent with respect to VUSE Alto only?
`
`VUSEAlto
`
`Claim 1
`(independent)
`
`Claim 2
`(dependent)
`
`Claim 11
`(dependent)
`
`Claim 12
`(dependent)
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`0:
`
`SRgE&
`4
`
`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)
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`f
`
`\/
`
`No
`
`No
`
`___No
`
`No
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1361 Filed 06/15/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 33946
`
`t- ' ' •
`
`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.
`
`4 -Damages: What sum of money did Philip Morris prove by a preponderance of the
`
`
`
`
`Question
`
`
`
`evidence would be adequate compensation for Reynolds's infringement of the '911 patent.
`
`
`Provide the amount below in dollars and cents.
`
`
`
`(Running Royalty for Past Infringement of the '911 Patent through December 31, 2021)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Please sign the form below.
`
`son (signed): - -; ---
`
`Jury Foreper
`
`Foreperson's Name (printed):
`
`
`Date: "Ju"e. ( S' 'lo z 'L
`
`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
