Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1376-6 Filed 06/29/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 34098
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1376-6 Filed 06/29/22 Page 1 of 4 PagelD# 34098
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1376-6 Filed 06/29/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 34099
`
`764
`
`M ic h a e l S h a m u s Q u in la n , E s q .
`J o n e s D a y ( O H - N A )
`9 0 1 L a k e s id e A v e n u e
`C le v e la n d , O H 4 4 1 1 4 - 1 1 9 0
`2 1 6 - 5 8 6 - 3 9 3 9
`F a x : 2 1 6 - 5 7 9 - 0 2 1 2
`E m a il: M s q u in la n @ jo n e s d a y .c o m
`
`J a s o n T o d d B u r n e t t e , E s q .
`J o n e s D a y ( G A )
`1 4 2 0 P e a c h tr e e S tre e t , N E
`S u ite 8 0 0
`A tla n t a , G A 3 0 3 0 9
`4 0 4 - 5 2 1 - 3 9 3 9
`E m a il: J b u rn e tt e @ jo n e s d a y . c o m
`
`D a v i d M i c h a e l M a io r a n a , E s q .
`J o n e s D a y ( O H )
`9 0 1 L a k e s id e A v e
`C le v e la n d , O H 4 4 1 1 4
`2 1 6 - 5 8 6 - 3 9 3 9
`E m a il: D m a io ra n a @ jo n e s d a y . c o m
`
`W illia m E d w a r d D e v it t , E s q .
`J o n e s D a y ( I L )
`7 7 W e s t W a c k e r
`S u ite 3 5 0 0
`C h ic a g o , IL 6 0 6 0 1
`3 1 2 - 2 6 9 - 4 2 4 0
`E m a il: W d e v itt @ jo n e s d a y .c o m
`
`S c o t t L . W a lla c e , R D R , R M R , C R R
`O ffic ia l C o u r t R e p o r t e r
`U n ite d S ta te s D is t ric t C o u r t
`4 0 1 C o u r th o u s e S q u a r e
`A le x a n d r ia , V A 2 2 3 1 - 5 7 9 8
`2 0 2 - 2 7 7 - 3 7 3 9
`s c o t tw a lla c e .e d v a @ g m a il.c o m
`
`762
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S : ( C o n t .)
`
`F o r t h e D e fe n d a n t s :
`
`C o u r t R e p o r t e r :
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`Civil Action
`No. 1:20-cv-00393-LMB/TCB
`
`June 13, 2022
`9:23 a.m.
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`PHILIP MORRIS PRODCUTS S.A.,
`
`
` Counterclaim Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
` Counterclaim Defendant.
`
` VOLUME 4 - 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
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S : (C o n t.)
`
`F o r t h e P la in t iffs :
`
`F o r t h e D e fe n d a n ts :
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`
`T h o m a s W . Y e h , E s q .
`L a th a m & W a t k in s L L P ( C A )
`3 5 5 S o u t h G ra n d A v e n u e
`S u ite 1 0 0
`L o s A n g e le s , C A 9 0 0 7 1 - 1 5 6 0
`2 1 3 - 8 9 1 - 8 0 5 0
`E m a il: T h o m a s .y e h @ lw .c o m
`
`M a t t h e w J o h n M o o r e , E s q .
`L a th a m & W a t k in s L L P ( D C )
`5 5 5 1 1 t h S tre e t, N W
`S u ite 1 0 0 0
`W a s h in g t o n , D C 2 0 0 0 4 - 1 3 0 4
`2 0 2 - 6 3 7 - 2 2 0 0
`E m a il: M a tth e w .m o o r e @ lw .c o m
`
`D a le C h a n g , E s q .
`L a th a m & W a t k in s L L P ( C A )
`3 5 5 S o u t h G ra n d A v e n u e
`S u ite 1 0 0
`L o s A n g e le s , C A 9 0 0 7 1 - 1 5 6 0
`2 1 3 - 8 9 1 - 8 0 5 0
`E m a il: D a le .c h a n g @ lw .c o m
`
`L a w r e n c e J a y G o t t s , E s q .
`L a th a m & W a t k in s L L P ( D C )
`5 5 5 1 1 t h S t N W
`S u ite 1 0 0 0
`W a s h in g t o n , D C 2 0 0 0 4 - 1 3 0 4
`2 0 2 - 6 3 7 - 2 2 0 0
`E m a il: L a w r e n c e .g o tts @ lw .c o m
`
`C h a r l e s B e n n e t t M o ls t e r , I I I , E s q .
`T h e L a w O ffic e s o f C h a rle s B . M o ls te r
`I I I , P L L C
`2 1 4 1 W is c o n s in A v e n u e N W , S u ite M
`W a s h in g to n , D C 2 0 0 0 7
`7 0 3 - 3 4 6 - 1 5 0 5
`E m a il: C m o ls te r@ m o ls te r la w .c o m
`
`S t e p h a n ie E t h e l P a r k e r , E s q .
`J o n e s D a y ( G A )
`1 4 2 0 P e a c h t r e e S tre e t , N E
`S u it e 8 0 0
`A tla n ta , G A 3 0 3 0 9
`4 0 4 - 5 2 1 - 3 9 3 9
`E m a il: S p a r k e r @ jo n e s d a y . c o m
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`
`P r o c e e d in g s re p o r t e d b y m a c h in e s h o rt h a n d , tr a n s c r ip t p r o d u c e d
`b y c o m p u te r- a id e d tr a n s c r ip tio n .
`
`763
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`
`E X A M I N A T I O N S P a g e
`
`D I R E C T E X A M I N A T IO N O F J E F F R E Y S U H L I N G
`B Y M R . D E V I T T
`C R O S S - E X A M I N A T I O N O F J E F F R E Y S U H L IN G
`B Y M R . N A P L E S
`R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N O F J E F F R E Y S U H L I N G
`B Y M R . D E V I T T
`
`765
`
`7 7 1
`
`8 0 5
`
`8 2 4
`
`R E B U T T A L D IR E C T E X A M IN A T I O N O F J O H N A B R A H A M
`B Y M R . S O B O L S K I
`R E B U T T A L C R O S S - E X A M I N A T IO N O F J O H N A B R A H A M
`B Y M R . M A IO R A N A
`R E B U T T A L R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N O F J O H N A B R A H A M 8 5 3
`B Y M R . S O B O L S K I
`R E B U T T A L R E C R O S S - E X A M I N A T I O N O F J O H N A B R A H A M 8 5 5
`B Y M R . M A IO R A N A
`
`8 3 3
`
`8 4 3
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`D e fe n d a n t 's E x h ib it R X 1 9 2 3 a d m itte d
`
`D e fe n d a n t 's E x h ib it R X 1 4 1 8 a d m itte d
`
`
`7 7 4
`
`8 0 0
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`
`1 of 26 sheets
`
`Page 762 to 765 of 864
`
`06/21/2022 08:47:07 AM
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1376-6 Filed 06/29/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 34100
`834
`
`836
`
`I strongly disagree with his opinion.
`
`Have you prepared demonstratives for your rebuttal
`
`Yes, I have.
`
`Let's go --
`
`MR. SOBOLSKI: Put those up on the screen, please, for
`
`Demonstrative Number 2.
`
`Explain to the jury, Dr. Abraham, why you strongly
`
`disagree with Mr. Kodama that the '911 Claims 2, 11, 12, and 13
`
`11:26AM 1 A.
`11:26AM 2 Q.
`11:26AM 3
`presentation today?
`11:26AM 4 A.
`11:26AM 5 Q.
`11:27AM 6
`11:27AM 7
`11:27AM 8
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`11:27AM 9 Q.
`11:27AM 10
`11:27AM 11
`are obvious?
`11:27AM 12 A.
`11:27AM 13
`11:27AM 14
`11:27AM 15
`11:27AM 16
`11:27AM 17
`11:27AM 18
`11:27AM 19
`11:27AM 20
`11:27AM 21
`11:27AM 22
`11:28AM 23
`11:28AM 24
`because the screen is not shown?
`11:28AM 25 Q.
`
`I will. I notice that they're not on the screen now, so
`
`I don't know if there's a technical issue that I should wait
`
`for. Thank you so much.
`
`Well, there are a number of reasons why I disagree with
`
`his opinion that the '911 is obvious. First of all, none of the
`
`references that he cited have any -- none of the references he
`
`cited have the claimed cross-sectional dimension.
`
`Furthermore, none of the references he cited have any
`
`internal dimensions of any structure in any of the products. No
`
`dimensions are given.
`
`And none of the references indicate that their drawings
`
`are to scale, and if I could just ask -- should I pause now
`
`Looks like we have it back.
`
`item, "no disclosure of the largest cross-sectional dimension"
`
`requirement in Claim 1 of the '911 Patent.
`
`Let's turn to the next demonstrative, Number 4, please,
`
`and explain to the jury how you applied your analysis of the
`
`11:29AM 1
`11:29AM 2
`11:30AM 3
`11:30AM 4
`11:30AM 5
`prior art Mr. Kodama identified with respect to this requirement.
`11:30AM 6 A.
`11:30AM 7
`11:30AM 8
`11:30AM 9
`11:30AM 10
`11:30AM 11
`11:30AM 12
`11:30AM 13
`11:30AM 14
`11:30AM 15
`11:30AM 16
`11:31AM 17
`11:31AM 18
`11:31AM 19
`11:31AM 20
`11:31AM 21
`11:31AM 22
`11:31AM 23
`11:31AM 24
`11:31AM 25
`
`On the screen you see Claim 1 of the '911 Patent and
`
`Figures 4 and 6 of the '911 Patent.
`
`And the patent provides context to what the patent is
`
`intending to convey. It provides context to the claims, and
`
`I've underlined three areas that I want to draw our attention
`
`to. In the first underlined statement, "at least one cavity in
`
`a wall."
`
`In the second underlined statement at the "at least one
`
`cavity is a blind hole recessed in the wall," now, they've
`
`mentioned "wall" twice, and that conveys the importance of the
`
`wall. Why is the wall important? Because it's the walls that
`
`help hold the liquid condensate. The walls matter.
`
`Imagine that you're in a room with a floor and you've got
`
`a wall here and a wall here (indicating). What is the
`
`cross-section of your room? It's from one wall to another.
`
`That's how I interpret it. That's how the patent's context
`
`tells me to interpret this dimension.
`
`And, in fact, in the last statement that's underlined,
`
`the "at least one cavity has a largest cross-sectional dimension
`
`X taken along a cross-section."
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`Thank you so much. And I apologize for that.
`
`In addition --
`
`THE COURT: That's difficult to watch, so we need to get
`
`this -- there we go.
`
`(Brief pause in proceedings.)
`
`THE WITNESS: Your Honor, can I continue?
`
`THE COURT: Yes.
`
`THE WITNESS: Thank you.
`
`Secondly, these four patents that he used are different
`
`and they operate under fundamentally different manners,
`
`fundamentally different ways. There's no motivation to do what's
`
`called combining them. There's no motivation to bring them
`
`together to fashion the '911 Patent, but even if you did bring
`
`them together, there's no indication in any of those references
`
`that point to the specific dimensions.
`
`Third, there would be no reason, especially considering
`
`the differences of these references, for someone to be
`
`successful. Bringing together four disparate prior art patents
`
`would not lead you to expect success.
`
`And then, lastly, hindsight. What you have to do is you
`
`have to put yourself in the mind of a designer 12 years ago.
`
`What did they know before the '911 Patent came out? And it's my
`
`opinion Mr. Kodama did not do that.
`
`11:28AM 1 A.
`11:28AM 2
`11:28AM 3
`11:28AM 4
`11:28AM 5
`11:28AM 6
`11:28AM 7
`11:28AM 8
`11:28AM 9
`11:28AM 10
`11:28AM 11
`11:28AM 12
`11:29AM 13
`11:29AM 14
`11:29AM 15
`11:29AM 16
`11:29AM 17
`11:29AM 18
`11:29AM 19
`11:29AM 20
`11:29AM 21
`11:29AM 22
`11:29AM 23
`11:29AM 24
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`11:29AM 25 Q.
`
`Thank you, Dr. Abraham. Let's start with that first
`
`835
`
`837
`
`So those statements together are telling me that the
`
`measurement is wall to wall.
`
`Now, the images that you see on the right-hand side of
`
`your screen add further confirmation that that's how the
`
`measurement should be made. So I evaluated his opinions and the
`
`prior art through the context provided by the patent.
`
`11:31AM 1
`11:31AM 2
`11:31AM 3
`11:31AM 4
`11:31AM 5
`11:31AM 6
`11:31AM 7
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`11:31AM 8 Q.
`11:32AM 9
`and Figure 6 of the '911 Patent; is that right?
`11:32AM 10 A.
`11:32AM 11 Q.
`11:32AM 12
`11:32AM 13
`11:32AM 14
`11:32AM 15
`references?
`11:32AM 16 A.
`11:32AM 17
`person of ordinary skill in the art.
`11:32AM 18 Q.
`11:32AM 19 A.
`11:32AM 20 Q.
`11:32AM 21
`ordinary skill and Mr. Kodama's?
`11:32AM 22 A.
`11:32AM 23 Q.
`11:32AM 24 A.
`11:32AM 25 Q.
`
`And those images on Slide 3, that's Figure 3 and Figure 4
`
`That is correct.
`
`Very good, Dr. Abraham.
`
`Let's turn to your next demonstrative and talk about the
`
`references that Mr. Kodama presented.
`
`Now, from what perspective did you analyze those
`
`I analyzed the references from the perspective of a
`
`And as of what date?
`
`The date of 2010.
`
`And did you apply both your understanding of a person of
`
`I did.
`
`Did that affect your opinions at all?
`
`No, the conclusions are the same.
`
`And what understanding of the claim language did you
`
`19 of 26 sheets
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`Page 834 to 837 of 864
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`06/21/2022 08:47:07 AM
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1376-6 Filed 06/29/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 34101
`862
`
`864
`
`
`
` C E R T I F I C A T E
`
` I, Scott L. Wallace, RDR-CRR, certify that
`the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of
`proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
`
`
` /s/ Scott L. Wallace 6/13/22
` ---------------------------- ----------------
` Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR Date
` Official Court Reporter
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`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
`
`It's the same exact issue we've already presented to Your
`
`Honor, and Your Honor has already denied it. So this -- now they
`
`filed a motion -- I understand they want to preserve the
`
`objection, but now we have to respond to a motion on an argument
`
`that we already won, and I think it's not a good use of the
`
`Court's time.
`
`With respect to the plain and ordinary meaning, certainly,
`
`as you know, Your Honor, we presented claim construction
`
`arguments to Judge O'Grady in the Markman proceeding, so we would
`
`like to preserve that we have made those claim constructions and
`
`that Judge O'Grady found that the claim terms all have their
`
`plain and ordinary meaning. For purposes of appeal, we want to
`
`preserve that objection, but we don't have an objection to
`
`proceeding under Judge O'Grady's Markman order, as you've said.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Well, I've expressed my
`
`discomfort, but, again, I feel that has been the law of the case
`
`for some time, and both sides have an objection to the case going
`
`in the jury in the format that it's going to go.
`
`Both sides should think about what that means down the
`
`road because one of you, I'm assuming -- well, it's possible you
`
`could both lose, that's actually maybe more than just possible.
`
`But anyway, I mean, you could have the jury find in either side's
`
`favor, but of course, that opens up still the right to appeal,
`
`and this is a wide-open issue in the appellate record, all right?
`
`And so I just think both sides should be thinking about that.
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`863
`If there were a way of cleaning up that record, I would be
`
`willing to entertain that. Otherwise, that's how it goes to the
`
`jury, all right?
`
`MR. MAIORANA: And given that all the evidence is in, Your
`
`Honor, I don't see a practical way to clean that issue up. I
`
`completely concur with Your Honor's concern, and given that claim
`
`construction is de novo, it's going to be considered by the Court
`
`of Appeals at the Federal Circuit de novo, but we have the order
`from Judge O'Grady that we had to present the evidence based on
`
`that. Certainly we want to preserve our objections to that, and
`
`we certainly don't concede or acquiesce to what Mr. Grant just
`
`said, that Judge O'Grady said a blind hole can never have open
`
`sides. That's for the jury to decide. That's a question of
`
`infringement, which is what Judge O'Grady said, and I just want
`
`to make sure I'm not acquiescing to Mr. Grant's statement.
`
`THE COURT: I'll look at the papers. Obviously, I want to
`
`give it careful attention, so the plan is to reconvene at 2:00,
`
`and again, that should give again, especially my court reporter,
`
`an opportunity so the transcript issue will not be a problem in
`
`terms of what was raised earlier, all right? All right. We'll
`
`see you back at 2:00.
`
`(Thereupon, a luncheon recess was had beginning at
`
`12:09 p.m.)
`
`12:06PM 1
`12:06PM 2
`12:06PM 3
`12:06PM 4
`12:06PM 5
`12:06PM 6
`12:06PM 7
`12:06PM 8
`12:06PM 9
`12:06PM 10
`12:07PM 11
`12:07PM 12
`12:07PM 13
`12:07PM 14
`12:07PM 15
`12:07PM 16
`12:07PM 17
`12:07PM 18
`12:07PM 19
`12:07PM 20
`12:07PM 21
`12:07PM 22
`12:07PM 23
`12:07PM 24
`12:07PM 25
`
`12:08PM 1
`12:08PM 2
`12:08PM 3
`12:08PM 4
`12:08PM 5
`12:08PM 6
`12:08PM 7
`12:08PM 8
`12:08PM 9
`12:08PM 10
`12:08PM 11
`12:08PM 12
`12:08PM 13
`12:08PM 14
`12:08PM 15
`12:08PM 16
`12:08PM 17
`12:08PM 18
`12:08PM 19
`12:09PM 20
`12:09PM 21
`12:09PM 22
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`06/21/2022 08:47:07 AM
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`Page 862 to 864 of 864
`
`26 of 26 sheets
`
`