Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1387-4 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 34590
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1387-4 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 11 PagelD# 34590
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1387-4 Filed 07/13/22 Page 2 of 11 PageID# 34591
`
`153
`
`151
`
`APPEARANCES: (Cont.)
`
`For the Defendants:
`
`Michael Shamus Quinlan, Esq.
`Jones Day (OH-NA)
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, OH 44114-1190
`216-586-3939
`Fax: 216-579-0212
`Email: Msquinlan@jonesday.com
`
`Jason Todd Burnette, Esq.
`Jones Day (GA)
`1420 Peachtree Street, NE
`Suite 800
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`404-521-3939
`Email: Jburnette@jonesday.com
`
`David Michael Maiorana, Esq.
`Jones Day (OH)
`901 Lakeside Ave
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`216-586-3939
`Email: Dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`William Edward Devitt, Esq.
`Jones Day (IL)
`77 West Wacker
`Suite 3500
`Chicago, IL 60601
`312-269-4240
`Email: Wdevitt@jonesday.com
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, RMR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`United States District Court
`401 Courthouse Square
`Alexandria, VA 2231-5798
`202-277-3739
`scottwallace.edva@gmail.com
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Proceedings reported by machine shorthand, transcript produced
`by computer-aided transcription.
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`
`154
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
`
`
`EXAMINATIONS Page
`
`CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MOIRA GILCHRIST 159
`BY MR. GRANT
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MOIRA GILCHRIST
`BY MS. PARKER
`REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF MOIRA GILCHRIST
`BY MR. GRANT
`
`169
`
`163
`
`DIRECT EXAMINATION OF JOHN ABRAHAM
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JOHN ABRAHAM
`BY MR. MAIORANA
`REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF JOHN ABRAHAM
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI
`
`DIRECT EXAMINATION OF HAROLD WALBRINK
`BY MR. YEH
`
`
` EXHIBITS
`
`174
`
`242
`
`278
`
`285
`
`DESCRIPTION Page
`
`Plaintiff's Exhibit PX 749 admitted
`
`16
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`Civil Action
`No. 1:20-cv-00393-LMB/TCB
`
`June 8, 2022
`1:55 p.m.
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`PHILIP MORRIS PRODCUTS S.A.,
`
`
` Counterclaim Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
` Counterclaim Defendant.
`
` VOLUME 1 - AFTERNOON SESSION
`TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEONIE M. BRINKEMA,
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiffs:
`
`APPEARANCES: (Cont.)
`
`For the Plaintiffs:
`
`For the Defendants:
`
`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
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`
`152
`
`Thomas W. Yeh, Esq.
`Latham & Watkins LLP (CA)
`355 South Grand Avenue
`Suite 100
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
`213-891-8050
`Email: Thomas.yeh@lw.com
`
`Matthew John Moore, Esq.
`Latham & Watkins LLP (DC)
`555 11th Street, NW
`Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-1304
`202-637-2200
`Email: Matthew.moore@lw.com
`
`Dale Chang, Esq.
`Latham & Watkins LLP (CA)
`355 South Grand Avenue
`Suite 100
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
`213-891-8050
`Email: Dale.chang@lw.com
`
`Lawrence Jay Gotts, Esq.
`Latham & Watkins LLP (DC)
`555 11th St NW
`Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-1304
`202-637-2200
`Email: Lawrence.gotts@lw.com
`
`Charles Bennett Molster, III, Esq.
`The Law Offices of Charles B. Molster
`III, PLLC
`2141 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite M
`Washington, DC 20007
`703-346-1505
`Email: Cmolster@molsterlaw.com
`
`Stephanie Ethel Parker, Esq.
`Jones Day (GA)
`1420 Peachtree Street, NE
`Suite 800
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`404-521-3939
`Email: Sparker@jonesday.com
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`
`1 of 41 sheets
`
`Page 151 to 154 of 311
`
`06/21/2022 08:42:01 AM
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1387-4 Filed 07/13/22 Page 3 of 11 PageID# 34592
`179
`181
`
`02:44PM 1 Q.
`02:44PM 2
`02:44PM 3
`the '911 Patent?
`02:44PM 4 A.
`02:44PM 5
`02:44PM 6
`02:44PM 7
`02:44PM 8
`02:44PM 9
`change.
`02:44PM 10 Q.
`02:44PM 11
`the art?
`02:44PM 12 A.
`02:44PM 13 Q.
`02:44PM 14
`02:44PM 15
`'911 Patent?
`02:44PM 16 A.
`02:45PM 17 Q.
`02:45PM 18
`ordinary skill in the art?
`02:45PM 19 A.
`02:45PM 20 Q.
`02:45PM 21
`infringement?
`02:45PM 22 A.
`02:45PM 23 Q.
`02:45PM 24
`02:45PM 25
`
`Okay. Let's look at Slide Number 3, Demonstrative 3.
`
`What is a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of
`
`In the context of the '911 Patent, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have at least a bachelor's degree in one
`
`of the areas listed on the screen. In addition, they would have
`
`at least two years of experience designing devices that involve
`
`fluid flow, fluid vaporization, and something called phase
`
`And are you, sir, at least a person of ordinary skill in
`
`Yes, I am.
`
`Now, do you understand that Reynolds has a different view
`
`of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would be for the
`
`Yes, they do.
`
`Have you considered Reynolds's view of a person of
`
`Yes, I have.
`
`And how does that impact your opinions about
`
`It does not impact my opinions about infringement.
`
`Sir, let's turn to --
`
`THE COURT: I'm sorry. I think the jury might want to
`
`know, what is your understanding of the defendant's definition of
`
`including their engineering programs or their engineering files,
`
`and in addition to that, I tested their samples. I tested the
`
`Okay. Let's talk about that for a moment. Now,
`
`Dr. Abraham, you have certain physical exhibits up there with
`
`you, some samples of products. I believe they're PPX 348 and 9;
`
`02:46PM 1
`02:46PM 2
`02:46PM 3
`samples of the Reynolds products that I analyzed.
`02:47PM 4 Q.
`02:47PM 5
`02:47PM 6
`02:47PM 7
`is that right?
`02:47PM 8 A.
`02:47PM 9 Q.
`02:47PM 10 A.
`02:47PM 11 Q.
`02:47PM 12
`infringement; is that right?
`02:47PM 13 A.
`02:47PM 14
`02:47PM 15
`02:47PM 16
`02:47PM 17
`02:47PM 18
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`02:47PM 19 Q.
`02:47PM 20
`which is the Alto and which is the Solo?
`02:47PM 21 A.
`02:47PM 22
`02:48PM 23
`02:49PM 24
`02:49PM 25
`
`I have these physical samples here (indicating).
`
`Explain to the jury what you're holding in your hands?
`
`So I'm holding a Vuse and a Solo G2.
`
`And those are the Reynolds products that you analyzed for
`
`That's correct.
`
`MR. SOBOLSKI: If it's okay with the Court, we would like
`
`to allow --
`
`THE COURT: I'll have my court security officer take each
`
`device and let the jurors handle them briefly.
`
`While they look at that, Dr. Abraham, for reference,
`
`The Solo is the one with the circular cross-section --
`
`it's the thinner one -- and the Alto is the more oblong one, and
`
`I believe it's got a greenish tint color to it.
`
`THE WITNESS: Thank you.
`
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`180
`
`182
`
`02:45PM 1
`02:45PM 2
`02:45PM 3
`02:45PM 4
`02:45PM 5
`02:45PM 6
`02:45PM 7
`02:45PM 8
`02:45PM 9
`02:45PM 10
`02:45PM 11
`02:46PM 12
`02:46PM 13
`02:46PM 14
`02:46PM 15
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`02:46PM 16 Q.
`02:46PM 17
`02:46PM 18
`02:46PM 19
`infringe the '911 Patent?
`02:46PM 20 A.
`02:46PM 21
`02:46PM 22
`02:46PM 23
`02:46PM 24
`02:46PM 25
`
`"one of ordinary skill in the art"?
`
`THE WITNESS: If I recall correctly, their definition had
`
`a different length of industrial experience. If I recall
`
`correctly, that was the difference, but it was the same
`
`baccalaureate degree.
`
`THE COURT: The same BS in mechanical engineering,
`
`physics, or material science.
`
`THE WITNESS: They may not have had -- there might have
`
`been a slight difference in the degree topics. For example, they
`
`may not have listed physics, as an example.
`
`THE COURT: But you think that the difference is primarily
`
`the amount of years of experience in the field?
`
`THE WITNESS: That's what I recall.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`Let's turn to Demonstrative Number 4, please, for a
`
`moment. Dr. Abraham, how did you go about forming your opinions
`
`on whether the Reynolds products that we're talking about
`
`Well, as you can see in the screen, there were three
`
`important steps that I took. First of all, I analyzed the
`
`patent and what's called the file history, which is the
`
`back-and-forth communications between the people trying to get
`
`the patent and the Patent Office.
`
`Next, I analyzed Reynolds's technical documentation,
`
`Dr. Abraham, you testified here in connection with your
`
`Slide Number 4 that you performed testing on physical samples of
`
`That is correct.
`
`MR. SOBOLSKI: Let's turn to the next slide, Number 5,
`
`please.
`
`And would you tell the jury, Dr. Abraham, what tests you
`
`02:49PM 1 Q.
`02:49PM 2
`02:49PM 3
`the Reynolds devices; is that right?
`02:49PM 4 A.
`02:49PM 5
`02:49PM 6
`02:49PM 7
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`02:49PM 8 Q.
`02:49PM 9
`performed and why?
`02:49PM 10 A.
`02:49PM 11
`02:49PM 12
`02:49PM 13
`02:49PM 14
`02:49PM 15
`02:49PM 16
`02:49PM 17
`02:49PM 18
`02:50PM 19
`02:50PM 20
`02:50PM 21
`triple-check my opinions.
`02:50PM 22 Q.
`02:50PM 23
`02:50PM 24
`02:50PM 25
`
`Sure. I performed two tests. One of them I'm calling a
`
`vaporization activation test, and what that means is I turned
`
`the device on and I used it because I wanted to confirm my
`
`understanding of how it functioned.
`
`In addition, I performed what I'll call a liquid
`
`injection test where I purposely injected e-liquid into the
`
`device to determine what would happen to that e-liquid, and that
`
`test is listed on the screen, and the reason why I performed
`
`those tests is I wanted to be sure of my opinions. I formed
`
`some opinions by reading the patent in the file history and by
`
`analyzing Reynolds' documentation, but I wanted to double- and
`
`Let's turn to the '911 Patent then, Dr. Abraham, please.
`
`If we could, let's advance to the next slide, Number 6.
`
`Can you explain to the jury what the '911 Patent is
`
`about?
`
`06/21/2022 08:42:01 AM
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`Page 179 to 182 of 311
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`8 of 41 sheets
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1387-4 Filed 07/13/22 Page 4 of 11 PageID# 34593
`191
`193
`
`03:01PM 1 Q.
`03:01PM 2
`03:01PM 3
`holes?
`03:01PM 4 A.
`03:02PM 5
`03:02PM 6
`03:02PM 7
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`03:02PM 8 Q.
`03:02PM 9 A.
`03:02PM 10
`03:02PM 11
`03:02PM 12
`03:02PM 13
`03:02PM 14
`03:02PM 15
`03:02PM 16
`03:02PM 17
`03:02PM 18
`03:02PM 19
`03:02PM 20
`03:02PM 21
`03:02PM 22
`03:02PM 23
`03:03PM 24
`03:03PM 25
`
`Is there any other additional information in the '911
`
`Patent record that confirms that Figures 4 and 6 each have blind
`
`Yes, there is.
`
`MR. SOBOLSKI: Let's turn to the next demonstrative,
`
`please, Number 16.
`
`And what have you shown here, Dr. Abraham?
`
`Well, what I'm showing on the bottom -- the two images
`
`are Figures 4 and Figure 6 of the patent, and on the bottom is
`
`part of an interview summary with the patent examiner. It's PX
`
`8A at 16296, and this is an interview summary, so this is what
`
`the patent examiner said after having an interview with the
`
`applicants.
`
`And I've got to tell you -- I have 16 patents; I've gone
`
`through these interviews before -- they're very thorough -- and
`
`the patent examiner wrote a summary, and here's what the patent
`
`examiner said:
`
`"The two blind holes of Figures 3 and 4 and/or the blind
`
`hole being toroid of Figures 5 and 6," so the patent examiner
`
`agrees that both of these figures show a blind hole, and I want
`
`to take a moment to explain what a toroid is. I mean, that's
`
`not a word we commonly hear. That just means doughnut. It's a
`
`doughnut-shaped hole, but the technical term for it is a toroid.
`
`So one of the reasons I know that these two figures have blind
`
`03:04PM 1
`03:04PM 2
`03:04PM 3
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`03:04PM 4 Q.
`03:04PM 5
`03:04PM 6
`hole, have an advantage?
`03:05PM 7 A.
`03:05PM 8
`03:05PM 9
`03:05PM 10
`03:05PM 11
`03:05PM 12
`03:05PM 13
`03:05PM 14
`03:05PM 15
`03:05PM 16
`03:05PM 17
`03:05PM 18
`03:05PM 19
`03:05PM 20
`03:05PM 21
`03:05PM 22
`03:05PM 23
`03:06PM 24
`03:06PM 25
`
`that is the important distance with respect to holding liquid.
`
`MR. SOBOLSKI: Let's turn to Demonstrative 18, please.
`
`Does the '911 Patent teach anything about why these
`
`particular dimensions, the sizes of the cavities that are blind
`
`Yeah, it mentions it. In fact, we see what the patent
`
`says right on your screen, but these sizes are optimized to be
`
`large enough to hold a sufficient amount of liquid but small
`
`enough to trap the liquid in the cavity by what's called
`
`capillary action.
`
`THE COURT: Why don't you explain for the jury "capillary
`
`action."
`
`THE WITNESS: Sure. So capillary action is a special
`
`force that exists on fluids, and it allows -- it allows fluids to
`
`be held and moved in small spaces.
`
`Let me give you an example. How does water get to the
`
`leaves on a tree? Imagine a tree 200 feet tall, how does water
`
`get up there? There's no pump. The tree actually has these
`
`little tubes that are in them, and they run all the way up, and
`
`those tubes draw up liquid all the way up to the top. There's no
`
`pump, there's no, you know, squirrel running a turbine at the
`
`bottom. It's drawn up to the top by capillary action. So
`
`capillary action is a force that is exerted on fluids in small
`
`spaces.
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`192
`
`194
`
`holes is because the personality examiner said so, and I agree
`
`Thank you, Dr. Abraham. The '911 leakage preventer
`
`patent teaches still further ways to design these cavities that
`
`Yes, it does.
`
`Let's look at that. Let's go to Demonstrative 17,
`
`03:03PM 1
`03:03PM 2
`with the patent examiner.
`03:03PM 3 Q.
`03:03PM 4
`03:03PM 5
`are blind holes?
`03:03PM 6 A.
`03:03PM 7 Q.
`03:03PM 8
`please, and please explain to the jury these additional ways.
`03:03PM 9 A.
`03:03PM 10
`03:03PM 11
`03:03PM 12
`03:03PM 13
`03:03PM 14
`03:03PM 15
`03:04PM 16
`03:04PM 17
`03:04PM 18
`03:04PM 19
`measurements from one wall to another across the cavity.
`03:04PM 20 Q.
`03:04PM 21
`matter?
`03:04PM 22 A.
`03:04PM 23
`03:04PM 24
`03:04PM 25
`
`On your screen you see Figures 4 and 6 of the patent, and
`
`these are figures we're familiar with. Underneath the figures
`
`you see text that explains the figures, and the text is from
`
`PX 3 at column 11, lines 28 through 33, and column 12, line 40
`
`through 50.
`
`And what the -- the other engineering aspect that the
`
`'911 Patent has is their size. The patent tells us how big they
`
`should be, and it even tells us how to make the measurement. As
`
`you'll notice in those images, the patent is showing us how to
`
`make the measurements, and it's telling us to make the
`
`Why do those dimensions and the way they're measured
`
`Well, because the distance between the walls -- that's
`
`the cross-section of dimension -- that's the dimension that
`
`tells you or that holds the liquid. There's something called
`
`capillary action, and capillary action is generated at walls, so
`
`THE COURT: And the trick is small spaces, though, right?
`
`If there were too wide a space...
`
`THE WITNESS: Yeah, that's right. If the tube is too
`
`wide, you can't draw the liquid up. So the easy way to think of
`
`it is, the smaller the space, the larger the force. The smaller
`
`the space, the larger the force.
`
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`Thank you, Dr. Abraham. Let's turn to infringement.
`
`MR. SOBOLSKI: Let's turn to Slide 19, please.
`
`And please explain to the jury how you analyzed the first
`
`The Solo G2, which is this device (indicating), I
`
`Okay. Let's go to the next demonstrative, 20, and tell
`
`03:06PM 1
`03:06PM 2
`03:06PM 3
`03:06PM 4
`03:06PM 5
`03:06PM 6
`03:06PM 7
`03:06PM 8
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`03:06PM 9 Q.
`03:06PM 10
`03:06PM 11
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`03:06PM 12 Q.
`03:06PM 13
`Reynolds device, the Solo G2.
`03:06PM 14 A.
`03:06PM 15
`analyzed this device against Claims 11 and 13 of the patent.
`03:06PM 16 Q.
`03:06PM 17
`the jury a little bit about what the Solo G2 device is?
`03:06PM 18 A.
`03:07PM 19
`03:07PM 20
`03:07PM 21
`03:07PM 22
`03:07PM 23
`03:07PM 24
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`03:07PM 25 Q.
`
`Sure. So the Solo G2 has a silver part that's got your
`
`battery -- that provides the energy -- and then inside this
`
`cartridge is the e-liquid, and there's a heater in here, and
`
`when you connect them, the battery sends energy to the heater
`
`and creates the vapor that then aerosolizes and you inhale.
`
`MR. SOBOLSKI: Okay. So let's turn to Slide 21.
`
`Explain for the jury, please, Dr. Abraham, how you
`
`11 of 41 sheets
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`Page 191 to 194 of 311
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`06/21/2022 08:42:01 AM
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1387-4 Filed 07/13/22 Page 5 of 11 PageID# 34594
`199
`201
`
`to that second part of the claim.
`
`Explain to the jury how you reach your conclusion about
`
`Sure. What you see in the slide is a snippet from that
`
`PMTA that I just showed you, and, in fact, it's PX 23 at page
`
`40. On this slide you see two colored arrows, and those are
`
`colored arrows that Reynolds drew on the diagram, so I didn't
`
`put those colored arrows in, but what I want to draw your
`
`attention to is the aerosol-forming chamber which I've
`
`highlighted in yellow, so I know from Reynolds's own
`
`Let's move on to Slide 27, please, Dr. Abraham. So in
`
`summary, what did you find about the Solo G2 for the second
`
`I found that it met the second aspect of Claim 1.
`
`Let's turn then to the third part of Claim 1,
`
`03:12PM 1
`03:12PM 2
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`03:12PM 3 Q.
`03:12PM 4
`the aerosol-forming chamber?
`03:12PM 5 A.
`03:12PM 6
`03:13PM 7
`03:13PM 8
`03:13PM 9
`03:13PM 10
`03:13PM 11
`03:13PM 12
`documentation that the Solo G2 has an aerosol-forming chamber.
`03:13PM 13 Q.
`03:13PM 14
`03:13PM 15
`aspect of Claim 1?
`03:13PM 16 A.
`03:13PM 17 Q.
`03:13PM 18
`Dr. Abraham. What did you conclude?
`03:13PM 19 A.
`03:13PM 20
`03:13PM 21
`03:13PM 22
`03:14PM 23
`means is described in the claim.
`03:14PM 24 Q.
`03:14PM 25
`
`Well, my conclusion, through my investigation, was that
`
`the Solo G2 has a leakage prevention means configured to prevent
`
`or reduce leakage of liquid aerosol condensate from the
`
`aerosol-generating system, and the structures that provide that
`
`So, we've gotten to a part of the '911 Patent that talks
`
`here about that leakage prevention, right?
`
`documentation -- I wanted to do my own investigation -- and so I
`
`went to the CAD files, and this is an image of the computer CAD
`
`file. Again, it's been cut open so it's a section view. It's
`
`Exhibit Number PX 262A, and in their CAD file I found these
`
`What else did you do, if anything?
`
`Well, I wanted to double- or triple-check, I guess, to
`
`double-check. I did my own experimentation, and in my first
`
`experimentation I actually activated the device -- I turned it
`
`on and I used it -- and I wanted to know, in use, would this
`
`03:15PM 1
`03:15PM 2
`03:15PM 3
`03:15PM 4
`03:15PM 5
`leakage prevention means that I'm highlighting in yellow.
`03:15PM 6 Q.
`03:16PM 7 A.
`03:16PM 8
`03:16PM 9
`03:16PM 10
`03:16PM 11
`device meet this claim language.
`03:16PM 12 Q.
`03:16PM 13 A.
`03:16PM 14
`03:16PM 15
`03:16PM 16
`03:16PM 17
`03:16PM 18
`03:16PM 19
`03:16PM 20
`03:16PM 21
`03:16PM 22
`03:16PM 23
`03:16PM 24
`03:16PM 25
`
`And what did you find based on that experiment?
`
`Well, what I found is shown on the screen. It's a little
`
`complex so I'm going to take just a moment to explain. I used
`
`what's called stereomicroscopy, which is just a very
`
`high-powered microscope that can get really close pictures. The
`
`microscope I used is shown on the right.
`
`But after I activated the device and used it, I cut it
`
`open, and I found droplets of condensate in the area that
`
`Reynolds had indicated would catch condensate in their own
`
`documentation, and I'm calling that out with two red arrows
`
`saying "liquid aerosol condensate," so my own experiments
`
`confirm what Reynolds said about their product and confirmed the
`
`structures in the CAD file.
`
`THE COURT REPORTER: Counsel -- can you slow down,
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`200
`
`202
`
`That's correct.
`
`MR. SOBOLSKI: Let's bring up Exhibit PX 30 for a moment,
`
`please, Mr. Smith.
`
`Explain to the jury what PX 30 is, Dr. Abraham.
`
`This is documentation that was part of a regulatory
`
`submission between Reynolds -- in support of their Vuse Solo
`
`device -- that's the device I'm holding in my hand -- and this
`
`document was signed by Mr. Eric Hunt, and we actually saw his
`
`videotaped deposition testimony earlier in this trial.
`
`MR. SOBOLSKI: Let's turn to Slide 28.
`
`Please explain to the jury what that exhibit shows?
`
`Well, this exhibit is from that technical document, and
`
`it's PX 30 at page 13, so this is Reynolds's own words
`
`describing their product, and they say there's a design feature
`
`intended to minimize the condensate from exiting the cartridge,
`
`and then they say that a raised lip minimizes leakage, and that
`
`confirms my understanding of how this device works and also
`
`03:14PM 1 A.
`03:14PM 2
`03:14PM 3
`03:14PM 4
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`03:14PM 5 Q.
`03:14PM 6 A.
`03:14PM 7
`03:14PM 8
`03:14PM 9
`03:14PM 10
`03:14PM 11
`03:14PM 12
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`03:14PM 13 Q.
`03:14PM 14 A.
`03:14PM 15
`03:14PM 16
`03:15PM 17
`03:15PM 18
`03:15PM 19
`03:15PM 20
`shows that it meets this part of the claim.
`03:15PM 21 Q.
`03:15PM 22
`03:15PM 23
`03:15PM 24
`the Solo G2 practices this part of Claim 1?
`03:15PM 25 A.
`
`Thank you, Dr. Abraham. Let's turn to the next
`
`demonstrative. I think it's Number 29.
`
`And did you do anything else to confirm your opinion that
`
`Yes, I did. I didn't want to just rely on Reynolds's
`
`please?
`
`Thank you, Dr. Abraham. So that's one experiment you
`
`performed. Did you perform any others to confirm infringement
`
`03:16PM 1
`03:17PM 2
` THE WITNESS: Sure. I'm so sorry.
`03:17PM 3 Q.
`03:17PM 4
`03:17PM 5
`by the Solo G2 device for this part of Claim 1?
`03:17PM 6 A.
`03:17PM 7 Q.
`03:17PM 8 A.
`03:17PM 9
`03:17PM 10
`03:17PM 11
`And I can explain that in more detail if you would like.
`03:17PM 12 Q.
`03:17PM 13
`jury what that liquid injection test is that you performed.
`03:17PM 14 A.
`03:17PM 15
`03:17PM 16
`03:18PM 17
`03:18PM 18
`03:18PM 19
`03:18PM 20
`03:18PM 21
`03:18PM 22
`03:18PM 23
`device, the liquid would stay inside.
`03:18PM 24 Q.
`03:18PM 25
`
`Yes, I did.
`
`What was that?
`
`Well, I triple-checked my conclusions, and to complement
`
`what I'm already showing on the screen, I performed yet another
`
`experiment which I'm calling the liquid injection experiment.
`
`Sure, please. Let's turn to Slide 30, and explain to the
`
`So, I took the device, and I took a special syringe for
`
`e-liquid, and I ejected the e-liquid into the cavities, and then
`
`I turned it upside down, as you see in the animation, and I
`
`noticed that liquid did not leak out. The leakage preventers
`
`held the liquid there.
`
`Now, on the right-hand side you see the photograph after
`
`I performed the experiment. I've highlighted the liquid in
`
`yellow, and I've also cut open the device, but this is following
`
`my experiment. So, basically, no matter how it re-entered the
`
`And just so it's clear for the jury, on this Slide 30,
`
`the exhibit on the right, that's PX 30 at page 19861, correct?
`
`13 of 41 sheets
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`Page 199 to 202 of 311
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`06/21/2022 08:42:01 AM
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1387-4 Filed 07/13/22 Page 6 of 11 PageID# 34595
`203
`205
`
`That's correct.
`
`And that's a photograph you took?
`
`That is correct. I took that photograph.
`
`And we're looking at PX 35 at page 1171. Is that also a
`
`Yes, it was.
`
`Thank you, sir.
`
`MR. SOBOLSKI: Let's go to the next demonstrative, then.
`
`So in sum, for this third part of Claim 1, for the Solo
`
`I found that it meets the third part of Claim 1.
`
`Then let's go on to the fourth part of Claim 1. What did
`
`03:18PM 1 A.
`03:18PM 2 Q.
`03:18PM 3 A.
`03:18PM 4 Q.
`03:18PM 5
`photograph that you took of the vaporization test result?
`03:18PM 6 A.
`03:18PM 7 Q.
`03:18PM 8
`03:18PM 9
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`03:18PM 10 Q.
`03:19PM 11
`G2, what did you find?
`03:19PM 12 A.
`03:19PM 13 Q.
`03:19PM 14
`you conclude there, Dr. Abraham?
`03:19PM 15 A.
`03:19PM 16
`03:19PM 17
`03:19PM 18
`03:19PM 19
`formed from the aerosol-forming substrate.
`03:19PM 20 Q.
`03:19PM 21
`bit about their structure.
`03:19PM 22 A.
`03:19PM 23
`03:19PM 24
`slide, I've got some images that will help me explain.
`03:19PM 25 Q.
`
`Well, through my investigation and experimentation, I
`
`found that the Solo G2 has a liquid -- or I'm sorry, a leakage
`
`prevention means that comprises at least one cavity in a wall of
`
`the aerosol-forming chamber for collecting liquid condensate
`
`Now, these leakage prevention -- tell the jury a little
`
`Well, they're cavities that are formed in the wall of the
`
`aerosol-forming chamber, and, in fact, if we go on to the next
`
`Sure.
`
`And then let's go to the fifth part of Claim 1,
`
`Dr. Abraham, and tell the jury what you concluded with that
`
`The fifth part of Claim 1, I -- my investigation showed
`
`that the Solo G2 has the fifth part, which is at least one
`
`cavity, which is a blind hole, recessed in a wall of the
`
`aerosol-forming chamber, and has an open end and a closed end in
`
`longitudinal direction extending between the open end and the
`
`closed end, and my investigation showed that it had this as
`
`03:21PM 1 Q.
`03:21PM 2
`03:21PM 3
`part.
`03:21PM 4 A.
`03:21PM 5
`03:21PM 6
`03:21PM 7
`03:21PM 8
`03:21PM 9
`03:21PM 10
`well.
`03:21PM 11 Q.
`03:21PM 12 A.
`03:21PM 13
`CAD files and my own physical teardown of their product.
`03:21PM 14 Q.
`03:21PM 15
`03:21PM 16
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`03:22PM 17 Q.
`03:22PM 18 A.
`03:22PM 19
`03:22PM 20
`03:22PM 21
`03:22PM 22
`03:22PM 23
`03:22PM 24
`03:22PM 25
`
`How do you know that?
`
`Well, I know it from my own investigation, which includes
`
`Let's see if we can show that.
`
`MR. SOBOLSKI: Let's go to Demonstrative 35, please.
`
`And explain to the jury what you've shown here.
`
`Sure. So we've seen these images before. They're PX
`
`262A and PX 36 at page 19758, and in both the CAD file as well
`
`as in my physical teardown I've identified the cavity that is a
`
`blind hole recessed in the wall of the aerosol-forming chamber.
`
`In addition, the cavity has an open end, a closed end,
`
`and longitudinal direction that extends between the open and the
`
`closed end, and I'm showing the longitudinal direction as that
`
`horizontal double-headed white arrow.
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`
`204
`
`206
`
`MR. SOBOLSKI: Let's go on to the next slide; I believe
`
`it's Number 32.
`
`What have you shown here, sir?
`
`The left-hand images from the CAD file. It's PX 262A.
`
`The right-hand image is PX 36 at page 19758, and the right-hand
`
`image is a photograph that I took with the stereomicroscope, and
`
`in both the CAD files, as well as in the physical product, I
`
`found that there was a cavity in a wall of the aerosol-forming
`
`Thank you, sir. Let's turn, then, to your next
`
`demonstrative, 33. And what have you shown here, Dr. Abraham on
`
`On this slide you see Reynolds's technical documentation
`
`and that's one of the exhibits that we've already shown, and
`
`this is PX 30 at page 13, and Reynolds describes their product
`
`as "a design feature intended to minimize the condensate from
`
`exiting the cartridge and a raised lip that minimizes leakage,"
`
`03:19PM 1
`03:19PM 2
`03:19PM 3
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`03:19PM 4 Q.
`03:19PM 5 A.
`03:20PM 6
`03:20PM 7
`03:20PM 8
`03:20PM 9
`03:20PM 10
`chamber.
`03:20PM 11 Q.
`03:20PM 12
`03:20PM 13
`Slide 33?
`03:20PM 14 A.
`03:20PM 15
`03:20PM 16
`03:20PM 17
`03:20PM 18
`03:20PM 19
`which confirms that their product meets this part of the claim.
`03:21PM 20 Q.
`03:21PM 21
`03:21PM 22
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`03:21PM 23 Q.
`03:21PM 24
`of Claim 1 of the '911 Patent with respect to the Solo G2?
`03:21PM 25 A.
`
`Thank you, sir.
`
`MR. SOBOLSKI: Let's turn to Slide 34, then.
`
`And so in summary, what did you find on the fourth part
`
`The Solo G2 has the fourth part.
`
`MR. SOBOLSKI: Let's turn to the next demonstrative.
`
`And so what does your investigation summary tell you
`
`My investigation showed -- told me that the Solo G2 has
`
`03:22PM 1
`03:22PM 2
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`03:22PM 3 Q.
`03:22PM 4
`about this fifth part of Claim 1?
`03:22PM 5 A.
`03:22PM 6
`the fifth part of this claim.
`03:22PM 7 Q.
`03:23PM 8
`03:23PM 9
`that part of Claim 1?
`03:23PM 10 A.
`03:23PM 11
`03:23PM 12
`03:23PM 13
`03:23PM 14
`.5 millimeters or 1 millimeter or between .5 and 1 millimeter.
`03:23PM 15 Q.
`03:23PM 16
`Explain to the jury how you know that.
`03:23PM 17 A.
`03:23PM 18
`03:23PM 19
`and I think those are shown in the next slide, and I also --
`03:23PM 20 Q.
`03:23PM 21 A.
`03:23PM 22 Q.
`03:23PM 23
`03:23PM 24
`03:23PM 25
`
`And that takes us to the last part of Claim 1,
`
`Dr. Abraham. What did you find for the Solo G2 with respect to
`
`Well, what I found was that the Solo G2 has at least one
`
`cavity, which has a largest cross-sectional dimension X taken
`
`along a cross-section of the cavity in a direction perpendicular
`
`to the longitudinal direction of the cavity where X is
`
`Okay. Let's talk about how you reached that conclusion.
`
`Sure. Well, I -- in my investigation, again, I used both
`
`the Reynolds technical documentations, which are the CAD files,
`
`Sure.
`
`-- I also made my own measurements.
`
`I'm sorry, Dr. Abraham, let's bring up that demonstrative
`
`so you can explain it to the jury.
`
`MR. SOBOLSKI: This is Number 37.
`
`BY MR. SOBOLSKI:
`
`06/21/2022 08:42:01 AM
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`Page 203 to 206 of 311
`
`Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
`14 of 41 sheets
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1387-4 Filed 07/13/22 Page 7 of 11 PageID# 34596
`207
`209
`
`Please go ahead, explain what you've shown here.
`
`On this -- on the screen, which is page 37 of my
`
`demonstrative, you see PX 262A -- that's that CAD file you've
`
`seen a gazillion times -- and we also see PX 36 at 19758, and
`
`I'm showing the measurement.
`
`And I measured the cross-sectional dimension of the
`
`cavity, and I found that it was between .5 and 1 millimeters,
`
`and, therefore, it's in the claimed range of the patent, and I
`
`also made my measurement perpendicular to the longitudinal
`
`Now, this part of Claim 1 that you're talking about here
`
`on Slide 37, Dr. Abraham, this largest cross-sectional
`
`dimension, is that a sort of size? Can you explain to the jury
`
`Yeah, that is the wall-to-wall size of the cavity, so
`
`we've been talking about these cavities that trap and hold
`
`liquid, and the relevant and critical dimension is the size from
`
`03:23PM 1 Q.
`03:23PM 2 A.
`03:24PM 3
`03:24PM 4
`03:24PM 5
`03:24PM 6
`03:24PM 7
`03:24PM 8
`03:24PM 9
`03:24PM 10
`direction, so the yellow and the white arrows are perpendicular.
`03:24PM 11 Q.
`03:24PM 12
`03:24PM 13
`03:24PM 14
`what that refers to?
`03:24PM 15 A.
`03:24PM 16
`03:24PM 17
`03:24PM 18
`one wall to another, and that's how I made the measurement.
`03:25PM 19 Q.
`03:25PM 20
`03:25PM 21
`that cavity is in the Solo G2?
`03:25PM 22 A.
`03:25PM 23 Q.
`03:25PM 24
`03:25PM 25
`
`And is there a dispute in this case by Reynolds about
`
`what the largest cross-sectional dimension is, what the size of
`
`Yes, there is a dispute.
`
`Let's turn to the next demonstrative, sir, and explain
`
`for the jury what that dispute is about the size of the cavity
`
`in the Solo G2?
`
`the right hand you have an annotated form of Figure 6 from the
`
`That's correct.
`
`And can you explain again what it is you highlighted in
`
`I'm highlighting in yellow how the patent tells us to
`
`How does that compare to the measurement you're showing
`
`03:26PM 1
`03:27PM 2
`patent, right?
`03:27PM 3 A.
`03:27PM 4 Q.
`03:27PM 5
`yellow on that figure?
`03:27PM 6 A.
`03:27PM 7
`make the measurement.
`03:27PM 8 Q.
`03:27PM 9
`in red that Reynolds's expert made?
`03:27PM 10 A.
`03:27PM 11
`and that's contrary to what the patent instructs us.
`03:27PM 12 Q.
`03:27PM 13
`03:27PM 14
`Claim 1 of the '911 leakage preventer patent for the Solo G2?
`03:27PM 15 A.
`03:27PM 16 Q.
`03:27PM 17
`03:27PM 18
`conclusion about that Claim 11.
`03:27PM 19 A.
`03:27PM 20
`03:28PM 21
`03:28PM 22
`03:28PM 23
`aerosol-forming substrate.
`03:28PM 24 Q.
`03:28PM 25 A.
`
`Well, he made the measurement twice and then added them,
`
`Thank you, sir. Let's move on to Demonstra