Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1387-14 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 34656
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1387-14 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 4 PagelD# 34656
`
`EXHIBIT 14
`EXHIBIT 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1387-14 Filed 07/13/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 34657
`
`3
`
`M i c h a e l S h a m u s Q u i n 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 @ j o 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 t r e e S t r e e t , N E
`S u it e 8 0 0
`A t la 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 r n e t t e @ j o n e s d a y . c o m
`
`D a v id M i c h a e l M a i o 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 r a n a @ j o n e s d a y . c o m
`
`W il li a m E d w a r d D e v i t 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 it e 3 5 0 0
`C h ic a g o , I L 6 0 6 0 1
`3 1 2 - 2 6 9 - 4 2 4 0
`E m a il: W d e v it t @ jo n e s d a y . c o m
`
`S c o t t L . W a l la 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 te r
`U n it e d S t a t e s D is t r ic t C o u r t
`4 0 1 C o u r t h 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 t w a lla c e .e d v a @ g m a il.c o m
`
`1
`
`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 rt e r :
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`Civil Action
`No. 1:20-cv-00393-LMB/TCB
`
`June 8, 2022
`8:51 a.m.
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`PHILIP MORRIS PRODCUTS S.A.,
`
`
` Counterclaim Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
` Counterclaim Defendant.
`
` VOLUME 1 - 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 th e P la in t iffs :
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`
`T h o m a s W . Y e h , E s q .
`L a t h 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 it e 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 t h a m & W a t k in s L L P ( D C )
`5 5 5 1 1 t h S t r e e t, N W
`S u it e 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 t th e w .m o o re @ lw . c o m
`
`D a le C h a n g , E s q .
`L a t h 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 it e 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 t h 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 it e 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 re n c e . g o t t s @ lw .c o m
`
`F o r th e D e fe n d a n t s :
`
`C h a r l e s B e n n e t t M o l s 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 t e 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 t e r @ m o ls te r la w .c o m
`
`S t e p h a n i e 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 re e S t r e e t , N E
`S u it e 8 0 0
`A t la n t a , 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 r e p o rt e d b y m a c h in e s h o r t h a n d , t ra 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 t io n .
`
`2
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
`4
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`
`E X A M I N A T I O N S P a g e
`
`O P E N I N G S T A T E M E N T O N B E H A L F O F T H E P L A I N T I F F
`
`1 2 0
`
`O P E N I N G S T A T E M E N T O N B E H A L F O F T H E D E F E N D A N T 1 3 1
`
`D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N O F M O I R A G I L C H R I S T
`B Y M R . G R A N T
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`1 4 0
`
`D E S C R I P T I O N P a g e
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`
`1 of 38 sheets
`
`Page 1 to 4 of 150
`
`06/21/2022 08:38:03 AM
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1387-14 Filed 07/13/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 34658
`129
`131
`
`12:31PM 1
`12:31PM 2
`12:31PM 3
`12:31PM 4
`12:31PM 5
`12:31PM 6
`12:32PM 7
`12:32PM 8
`12:32PM 9
`12:32PM 10
`12:32PM 11
`12:32PM 12
`12:32PM 13
`12:32PM 14
`12:32PM 15
`12:32PM 16
`12:32PM 17
`12:32PM 18
`12:32PM 19
`12:32PM 20
`12:32PM 21
`12:32PM 22
`12:33PM 23
`12:33PM 24
`12:33PM 25
`
`Philip Morris's patented technology. Now, to be clear, this
`
`$37 million figure is a conservative figure that's based on
`
`conservative assumptions that you'll hear about, and that if you
`
`believe a higher royalty is supported by the evidence, you're
`
`entitled to award more.
`
`Now, Reynolds used this technology in Philip Morris's
`
`patents without our permission, without even asking, despite
`
`their executives admitting that they knew about each patent or
`
`published application before the lawsuit was filed and before
`
`they started producing the devices. The timeline I'm showing you
`
`here shows the dates that Reynolds admits it knew about our
`
`patents and applications and the dates it came out with the Vuse
`
`products in the United States.
`
`Now, as the judge told you, your job here is an important
`
`one, Philip Morris, us, has to prove by what's called a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that Reynolds used devices that
`
`meet each specific element set forth in our patent claim.
`
`What's Reynolds' response? The evidence is going to show
`
`its excuses, a bunch of excuses. There's an old saying that the
`
`best defense is a good offense, and I think you should prepare to
`
`hear that next.
`
`Reynolds says the Patent Office, for example, made
`
`mistakes when the Patent Office approved the patent, but as you
`
`saw in the patent video, before a patent issues, expert examiners
`
`study an invention for years, they must conclude that the
`
`12:34PM 1
`12:34PM 2
`12:34PM 3
`12:34PM 4
`12:34PM 5
`12:35PM 6
`12:35PM 7
`12:35PM 8
`12:35PM 9
`12:35PM 10
`12:35PM 11
`12:35PM 12
`12:35PM 13
`12:35PM 14
`12:35PM 15
`12:35PM 16
`12:35PM 17
`12:35PM 18
`12:35PM 19
`12:35PM 20
`12:36PM 21
`12:36PM 22
`12:36PM 23
`12:36PM 24
`12:36PM 25
`
`OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS
`
`MS. PARKER: May it please the Court, and counsel. Let me
`
`introduce myself again. My name is Stephanie Parker, and I'm
`
`really proud to be here today representing Reynolds.
`
`Now, ya'll have heard about the Patent Office both in the
`
`video and Mr. Grant mentioned it also. The Patent Office is
`
`right around the corner here.
`
`The evidence at trial is going to show that when Philip
`
`Morris was at the Patent Office, they made very narrow claims to
`
`get the patent. They went in and they had narrow, limited
`
`restrictions in the patent in their application that they sent
`
`in, but now we're here in the courthouse, and in the courthouse
`
`they're trying to interpret those claims more broadly to try to
`
`cover the Reynolds products. That's what we're here about.
`
`Reynolds does not infringe. They don't -- these patents
`
`are not valuable, they're not meaningful. They don't even use
`
`them. They don't even have a product in the United States at
`
`all.
`
`And you're going to hear at trial that Reynolds has been
`
`the true innovator. Reynolds is the first company that ever got
`
`FDA authorization to sell an e-cigarette. That will be the
`
`evidence that you hear at trial.
`
`Now, let me stop and talk to you a little bit more about
`
`what the evidence is going to be about these specific
`
`requirements that are in the patent. So, the way it works, and a
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`132
`
`12:33PM 1
`12:33PM 2
`12:33PM 3
`12:33PM 4
`12:33PM 5
`12:33PM 6
`12:33PM 7
`12:33PM 8
`12:33PM 9
`12:33PM 10
`12:33PM 11
`12:33PM 12
`12:33PM 13
`12:34PM 14
`12:34PM 15
`12:34PM 16
`12:34PM 17
`12:34PM 18
`12:34PM 19
`12:34PM 20
`12:34PM 21
`12:34PM 22
`12:34PM 23
`12:34PM 24
`12:34PM 25
`
`130
`
`invention is new, not obvious, and that the patent properly
`
`describes the invention.
`
`Only then will they issue a patent, which the Patent
`
`Office is just a couple of blocks away, two separate times, and
`
`that effort that the patent examiners and the Patent Office take
`
`to vet inventions to ensure they're warranted before handing them
`
`out doesn't get short shrift here.
`
`As the judge told you, because the Patent Office examiners
`
`are presumed to have done their job, someone challenging a patent
`
`has to show that the Patent Office was wrong by clear and
`
`convincing evidence, a higher standard of proof, but you're not
`
`going to see any strong evidence from Reynolds that the Patent
`
`Office made any mistake or that Philip Morris's patents are not
`
`novel or somehow obvious.
`
`Now, after you've seen the evidence, I'm going to ask that
`
`you return a verdict of infringement in Philip Morris's favor
`
`and, because Reynolds admits that it knew about our patents
`
`before the devices were sold, that this infringement was
`
`intentional and we will ask you to find that Reynolds'
`
`infringement was willful.
`
`After the evidence is closed, I'll have an opportunity to
`
`speak to you again. I thank you for your patience this
`
`afternoon.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you. All right. We'll have our opening
`
`statement from Reynolds.
`
`12:36PM 1
`12:36PM 2
`12:36PM 3
`12:36PM 4
`12:36PM 5
`12:36PM 6
`12:36PM 7
`12:36PM 8
`12:36PM 9
`12:36PM 10
`12:36PM 11
`12:36PM 12
`12:37PM 13
`12:37PM 14
`12:37PM 15
`12:37PM 16
`12:37PM 17
`12:37PM 18
`12:37PM 19
`12:37PM 20
`12:37PM 21
`12:37PM 22
`12:37PM 23
`12:37PM 24
`12:37PM 25
`
`good bit of this was discussed on the Patent Office video also,
`
`but the way it works is someone who wants to get a patent, they
`
`draft up, they fill out that application, they send it to the
`
`Patent Office, and here their own lawyers reviewed what they sent
`
`in.
`
`So this is their language. It's not language from the
`
`Patent Office; it's their language on their application that they
`
`sent in to the Patent Office, and you're going to see -- if we
`
`could pull this up -- you're going to see at trial that the
`
`patents that they're talking about here have very specific
`
`requirements. They have requirements about the shapes, the
`
`materials, the sizes, the positions and the functions of these
`
`products and this technology.
`
`And if a product doesn't meet any one of those
`
`requirements in the patent, that means it does not infringe.
`
`So a lot of the evidence that you're going to hear about
`
`in the case is about whether these products fit in those narrow,
`
`strict requirements in the patent.
`
`Now, the video also talked about a property deed and about
`
`a patent being like a property deed. Well, that's correct, and
`
`to use that in the case here, what's happening is Philip Morris
`
`has their deed, they have their patent, but they're trying to
`
`expand it. They're trying to get it to cover the property next
`
`door and the property down the street as opposed to being limited
`
`to what is actually the boundaries in that property deed itself.
`
`33 of 38 sheets
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`Page 129 to 132 of 150
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`06/21/2022 08:38:03 AM
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1387-14 Filed 07/13/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 34659
`149
`
`United States. It's a science-based process and it's overseen
`
`How does a smoke-free product like a heat-not-burn or
`
`So what a manufacturer has to do is first of all, create
`
`the technology and create the scientific evidence, and that can
`
`take years, and then put it all together in a file which is then
`
`submitted to the FDA, who then makes a decision about whether
`
`the product is what they call appropriate for the protection of
`
`public health.
`
`THE COURT: Since you mentioned food and drugs, it is
`
`1:00, so that's our time for lunch. So, folks, we're on recess
`
`now until 2:00. You're free to purchase lunch around here.
`
`There are lots of small cafeterias or even downstairs in the jury
`
`assembly room. You need to all be back here promptly in your
`
`seats ready to go by 2:00. Please remember my cautions about --
`
`and also leave your notebooks and everything here in the
`
`01:01PM 1
`01:01PM 2
`by the Food and Drug Administration.
`01:01PM 3 Q.
`01:01PM 4
`e-vapor, how does that obtain that authorization?
`01:01PM 5 A.
`01:01PM 6
`01:01PM 7
`01:01PM 8
`01:02PM 9
`01:02PM 10
`01:02PM 11
`01:02PM 12
`01:02PM 13
`01:02PM 14
`01:02PM 15
`01:02PM 16
`01:02PM 17
`01:02PM 18
`01:02PM 19
`01:02PM 20
`01:02PM 21
`01:02PM 22
`23
`24
`25
`
`courtroom.
`
`Remember my cautions about not discussing the case with
`
`anyone, including yourselves, and we'll see you all back here at
`
`2:00. Thank you.
`
`(Jury out at 1:02 p.m.)
`
`(Thereupon, a luncheon recess was had beginning at 1:02
`
`p.m.)
`
`
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`150
`
`
` 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 6/8/22
` ---------------------------- ----------------
` Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR Date
`
`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
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`06/21/2022 08:38:03 AM
`
`Page 149 to 150 of 150
`
`38 of 38 sheets
`
`