Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1392 Filed 07/19/22 Page 1 of 15 PageID# 34700
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`
`v.
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY
`
`Defendant.
`
`PHILIP MORRIS’ [CORRECTED] BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF SUBMISSION OF THE
`WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT ISSUE TO THE JURY
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1392 Filed 07/19/22 Page 2 of 15 PageID# 34701
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Reynolds’ Heat-Not-Burn Products Failed So It Had To Pivot to E-
`Cigarettes .................................................................................................................1
`
`Reynolds Has Had Knowledge of Philip Morris’ Asserted Patents Since
`Issuance ....................................................................................................................2
`
`The Similarities Between The Asserted Patents And Accused Products
`Were Apparent .........................................................................................................2
`
`D. With Knowledge Of The Asserted Patents And The Similarities To The
`Accused Products, Reynolds Chose to Continue To Sell The Accused
`Products Without Permission ...................................................................................5
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Philip Morris Sued Reynolds For Infringement On June 29, 2020 .........................6
`
`Reynolds’ Motion For Summary Judgment On Willfulness Was Denied ...............6
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................6
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Reynolds Deliberately Infringed Philip Morris Patents Because It Was
`Desperate To Have E-Cigarette Products On The Market.......................................8
`
`There Is No Dispute That Reynolds Knew Of The Asserted Patents And
`Infringement Post-Suit ...........................................................................................11
`
`There Is A Significant Risk Of Wasting Judicial Resources To Not Allow
`Willfulness To Go To The Jury .............................................................................11
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................12
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1392 Filed 07/19/22 Page 3 of 15 PageID# 34702
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`There is more than sufficient evidence for the jury to find Reynolds willfully infringed the
`
`asserted patents.
`
`Reynolds was monitoring its competitors’ patents—particularly those of its “fierce”
`
`competitor—Philip Morris. And there is no dispute Reynolds knew of the applications that issued
`
`as the ’911 and ’265 patents, and knew of the issuance of the ’265 patent by November 21, 2017
`
`and the ’911 patent by December 4, 2018. While Reynolds was monitoring Philip Morris’ patents,
`
`it purchased the Alto, Vibe, and Ciro products and conducted tear downs of the physical devices,
`
`confirming that they knew both about the Philip Morris patents and the specific shapes, materials,
`
`sizes, positions, and functions of the physical structures in the accused devices. Consequently,
`
`Reynolds—informed by the monthly patent analysis of its in-house counsel and the product tear
`
`downs of its extensive engineering team, both working for Dr. Figlar—knew or should have known
`
`it was infringing Philip Morris’ asserted patents.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`
`Reynolds’ Heat-Not-Burn Products Failed So It Had To Pivot to E-Cigarettes
`
`In the early 1980s, Reynolds sought to develop an alternative to combustible cigarettes
`
`called heat-not-burn products. Tr. (6/9/22 pm) at 112:1-11. Heat-not-burn products heat tobacco,
`
`rather than burn it, which significantly reduces the amount of tar and nicotine found in smoke. Id.
`
`at 112:1-11. Reynolds’ heat-not-burn products failed. Id. at 143:13-144:12, 144:23-25, 145:11-
`
`13.
`
`Having invested over a billion dollars in two failed combustible cigarette alternatives,
`
`Reynolds moved into the e-cigarette market. Tr. (6/9/22 pm) at 145:14-146:7. In 2013, Reynolds
`
`launched its first e-cigarette product. Id. at 118:23-119:10. “Reynolds had aspirations to being
`
`number one in the vapor market.” Id. at 105:20-21. Reynolds invested tens of millions of dollars
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1392 Filed 07/19/22 Page 4 of 15 PageID# 34703
`
`to develop the Solo and another $30 million in the PMTA application. Id. at 121:3-7. Reynolds
`
`invested more to acquire the Alto, Vibe and Ciro and spent tens of millions more on their PMTA
`
`applications. Id. at 137:17-22.
`
`B.
`
`Reynolds Has Had Knowledge of Philip Morris’ Asserted Patents Since
`Issuance
`
`Reynolds and Philip Morris are “fierce” competitors. Tr. (6/8/22 am) at 135:18-19.
`
`Throughout this period, Reynolds monitored Philip Morris’ patents. Ex. A (6/24/21 Figlar Dep.)
`
`at 132:21-133:10 (played at trial). Reynolds looked “at the full patent landscape” and “[kept] a
`
`close eye on the patent literature,” including Philip Morris’ patents. Id. Reynolds’ in-house and
`
`outside counsel would review competitor patents, and every time there was a “new iteration of
`
`patent publications,” the lawyers would “compile it and send it out to the scientists” and other
`
`Reynolds employees “at least on a monthly basis.” Id. at 134:5-134:17. Reynolds’ corporate
`
`witness, Dr. Figlar, testified that it would be irresponsible for a company to ignore the research
`
`and patents that are out there from competitors. Tr. (6/9/22 pm) at 130:1-4. As a result, Reynolds
`
`concedes that it knew of the patent application that issued as the ’911 patent by December 3, 2013
`
`and the asserted ’911 patent by December 4, 2018, and it knew of the application that issued as the
`
`’265 patent by October 30, 2014 and the ’265 patent by November 21, 2017. PX-613 at 3. There
`
`is no evidence in the record that Reynolds took any steps to avoid infringement.
`
`C.
`
`The Similarities Between The Asserted Patents And Accused Products Were
`Apparent
`
`The evidence shows that the similarities between the asserted patents and accused products
`
`were, or should have been, readily apparent to the in-house counsel and many engineers at
`
`Reynolds who had access to the monthly patent reports circulated at Reynolds.
`
`During trial, Philip Morris and Reynolds’ technical experts explained in great detail the
`
`many similarities between the products and the asserted Philip Morris patents. Those similarities
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1392 Filed 07/19/22 Page 5 of 15 PageID# 34704
`
`are plain even on cursory review, as shown in the table below comparing the products to the
`
`embodiments of the ’911 patent disclosed in its application. For example, Dr. Abraham and Mr.
`
`Kodama each explained that the “blind hole” in the Solo is the same as the “blind hole” in Figures
`
`5 and 6 of the ’911 patent—they are both at the tip of the mouthpiece, shaped like a donut, and
`
`have a cross-sectional width between 0.5 to 1mm:
`
`Similarly, Dr. Abraham and Mr. Kodama demonstrated the striking similarity between the
`
`“blind holes” in the Alto and the “blind holes” in Figures 3 and 4 because they are all at the tip of
`
`the mouthpiece, in the same locations on opposite sides of the exit hole, and symmetric:
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1392 Filed 07/19/22 Page 6 of 15 PageID# 34705
`
`Reynolds disputed infringement of only two elements: (i) “blind hole” and (ii) “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 0.5 mm, or 1 mm, or between 0.5 and 1 mm.”
`
`Reynolds’ first argument contradicts Judge O’Grady’s claim construction order. The Court ruled
`
`that “blind hole” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning (Dkt. 360), and rejected Reynolds’
`
`proposed construction of “a hole that does not extend to the outside of the aerosol-generating
`
`system.” Dkt. 223 at 28. Judge O’Grady also confirmed there were no disclaimers based on the
`
`prosecution history, including in view of the Rose ’975 patent. Dkt. 360. In his Daubert order,
`
`Judge O’Grady subsequently confirmed that the discussion of the Rose ’975 patent during the
`
`prosecution history “did not expressly disclaim the subject matter of any blind-hole that also
`
`contained additional spaces or cavities,” and did “not teach the level of explicit disavowal where
`
`the invention excludes a particular embodiment, or where the history limits the invention to a
`
`particular form.” Dkt. 1184 at 23. Indeed, Reynolds’ “blind hole” defense contradicts the plain
`
`language of the claims, which does not include any requirement of a structure enclosed on all sides.
`
`It also contradicts the specification and the file history, which confirm both that Figures 3, 4, 5 and
`
`6 are all examples of the claimed “blind hole,” and that the discussion of the Rose reference in no
`
`way limits the plain meaning of that term. Reynolds’ second argument is based on its expert’s
`
`measurement of the dimensions of the cavity that contradicts the specification’s guidance and is
`
`not even a cross-sectional dimension. Even worse, Reynolds’ expert admitted he performed no
`
`functional testing on the accused products whatsoever, relying instead on positions that contradict
`
`the ’911 patent’s teachings and the Examiner’s unequivocal statements during prosecution. Tr.
`
`(6/10/22 am) at 87:9-13, 96:8-22.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1392 Filed 07/19/22 Page 7 of 15 PageID# 34706
`
`As for the ’265 patent, Mr. Walbrink demonstrated that the VUSE Alto cartridges are the
`
`same as claims 1 and 4. Reynolds’ only non-infringement defenses hinge on suggesting to the jury
`
`(i) that the “mouthpiece” is not connected to the rest of the device (even though Reynolds’ own
`
`technical witness has testified otherwise (Tr. (6/10/22 am), not received yet); (ii) that a “thin film”
`
`is not “flat” when magnified under a powerful microscope (even though the claims do not use the
`
`word “flat”); and (iii) that the claims require a specific “area” (even though “area” appears nowhere
`
`in the claims).
`
`There is no evidence in the record that Reynolds had identified or relied on any of the
`
`purported noninfringement defenses pre-suit to develop a good faith basis for believing Reynolds
`
`did not infringe either of the asserted patents.
`
`D. With Knowledge Of The Asserted Patents And The Similarities To The
`Accused Products, Reynolds Chose to Continue To Sell The Accused
`Products Without Permission
`
`Willful infringement requires specific intent. Intent can be proved by circumstantial
`
`evidence. Motive is circumstantial evidence of intent. See Fuma Int’l LLC v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`
`Co., No. 1:19-cv-260, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198861 at *9 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 2021) (holding
`
`that “[t]he factfinder evaluates willfulness in light of the totality of the circumstances … [t]he
`
`pre-patent conduct, which the Court need not summarize here, is highly probative of RJR’s
`
`intent and motives”); Patent Holding Co. v. TG (USA) Corp., No. 96-cv-74721, 1997 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 22571, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 2, 1997) (“While the intent or motive of the infringer in a
`
`patent suit is irrelevant to the first three questions, intent is central to the fourth issue of imposing
`
`increased damages for willful infringement.”).
`
`Despite the similarities between the asserted patents that Reynolds knew about and the
`
`accused products Reynolds tore down so that it understood their physical structures, Reynolds
`
`continued to sell the accused products. Reynolds knew that (1) it could not change the design (Tr.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1392 Filed 07/19/22 Page 8 of 15 PageID# 34707
`
`(6/9/22 pm) at 123:6-124:4, 135:10-136:15), (2) Philip Morris would not license its technology
`
`(Tr. (6/8/22 am) at 147:12-148:5), and (3) it had no other products to sell (Tr. (6/9/22 pm) at 131:8-
`
`15). As a result, Reynolds had only two options–continue to sell the infringing products or take
`
`them off the market. Given the $1.4 billion in revenue earned from the accused products, Reynolds
`
`had strong financial motive to continue to sell the accused product despite Philip Morris’ patents.
`
`VUSE Alto was released by Reynolds after Reynolds admits it knew of the ’265 patent and the
`
`application that led to the ’911 patent (supra at 2); it has been Reynolds’ best-selling e-cigarette
`
`product and a leader in the marketplace. Tr. (6/9/22 pm) at 125:17-18.
`
`E.
`
`Philip Morris Sued Reynolds For Infringement On June 29, 2020
`
`Philip Morris counterclaimed for infringement of the ’911 and ’265 patents on June 29,
`
`2020. Dkt. 40; Tr. (6/10/22 am, not received yet). In its counterclaims, Philip Morris expressly
`
`described how Reynolds’ Solo and Alto products infringe the ’911 and ’265 patents – element-by-
`
`element. With knowledge of this infringement, Reynolds has continued to sell the accused Solo
`
`and Alto products.
`
`F.
`
`Reynolds’ Motion For Summary Judgment On Willfulness Was Denied
`
`Reynolds motion for summary judgment of willfulness was denied “under the standard set
`
`out in the well-known Halo Electronics case.” Dkt. 803 at 2-3. Judge O’Grady denied this motion
`
`based on Reynolds’ pre-suit knowledge, statements to the FDA, failure to take any remedial
`
`actions and inability to change the products. Id.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“If the evidence as a whole is susceptible of more than one reasonable inference, a jury
`
`issue is created and a motion for judgment as a matter of law should be denied.” Fry v. Rand
`
`Constr. Corp., 964 F.3d 239, 244 (4th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2595 (2021).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1392 Filed 07/19/22 Page 9 of 15 PageID# 34708
`
`“Willfulness of behavior is a classical jury question of intent. When trial is had to a jury,
`
`the issue should be decided by the jury.” WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1341 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016). 1 After the Supreme Court’s Halo decision, “the concept of ‘willfulness’ requires a
`
`jury to find no more than deliberate or intentional infringement.” Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian
`
`Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc., 946 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Halo Elecs., Inc. v.
`
`Pulse Elecs., Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016)). Moreover, “whether an act is ‘willful’ is by definition a
`
`question of the actor’s intent, the answer to which must be inferred from all the circumstances.”
`
`WCM Indus., Inc. v. IPS Corp., 721 F. App’x 959, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This “subjective prong”
`
`requires a finding “that the risk of infringement was either known or so obvious that it should have
`
`been known to the accused.” Id. at 969.
`
`During oral arguments on its Rule 50(a) Motion of No Willfulness, Reynolds invited the
`
`Court to commit legal error by advocating for the wrong legal standard for willful infringement.
`
`See Tr. (6/9/22 pm) at 78:19-79:1 (arguing that “a jury determination of willful infringement …
`
`according to that Bayer case, requires wanton, malicious and bad faith behavior”) (citing Bayer
`
`Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc., 989 F.3d 964, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). In SRI Int’l, which was
`
`decided after Bayer, the Federal Circuit expressly rejected that standard:
`
`To eliminate the confusion created by our reference to the language
`‘wanton, malicious, and bad-faith’ in Halo, we clarify that it was not
`our intent to create a heightened requirement for willful
`infringement. Indeed, that sentence from Halo refers to ‘conduct
`warranting enhanced damages,’ not conduct warranting a finding
`of willfulness. As we said in Eko Brands, ‘[u]nder Halo, the concept
`of ‘willfulness’ requires a jury to find no more than deliberate or
`intentional infringement.’
`
`
`1 All emphases added and internal citations and modifications omitted unless otherwise noted.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1392 Filed 07/19/22 Page 10 of 15 PageID# 34709
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 14 F.4th 1323, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (reversing district court’s
`
`grant of JMOL of no willfulness under the “wanton, malicious, and bad-faith” standard), cert.
`
`denied, No. 21-1267, 2022 WL 1528531 (U.S. May 16, 2022). Under the operative and proper
`
`legal standards, denial of Reynolds’ motion for JMOL is not a close one. But even under the now
`
`discredited standard that Reynolds wrongly asks the Court to adopt, Reynolds’s motion should be
`
`denied.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Reynolds Deliberately Infringed Philip Morris Patents Because It Was
`Desperate To Have E-Cigarette Products On The Market
`
`Reynolds’ heat not burn products failed. Tr. (6/9/22 pm) at 143:13-144:12, 144:23-25,
`
`145:11-13. Reynolds made a strategic decision to move into e-cigarettes and “Reynolds had
`
`aspirations to being number one in the vapor market.” Id. at 105:20-21. As a result, Reynolds
`
`spent tens of millions of dollars on this market but lacked the necessary products to compete. Id.
`
`at 131:8-15. Although the Solo product had limited success, Reynolds found it necessary to go
`
`out to the market to purchase other e-cigarette designs such as the Alto, Vibe, and Ciro so that it
`
`could have products that were on the market before the August 8, 2016 deadline set by the Deeming
`
`Rule. Id. at 122:8-21. Reynolds made a multi-hundred million-dollar investment in the e-cigarette
`
`market.
`
`At the same time, Reynolds was carefully monitoring its competitors’ patents—
`
`particularly its “fierce” competitor Philip Morris-on a monthly. 6/24/21 Figlar Dep. at 132:21-
`
`133:10; 134:5-17 (played at trial); Tr. (6/9/22 pm) at 130:1-4; Tr. (6/8/22 am) at 135:18-22. For
`
`example, Reynolds knew of the applications that issued as the ’911 and ’265 patents no later than
`
`December 3, 2013 and October 30, 2014, respectively. PX-613 at 3. And Reynolds knew of the
`
`’265 and ’911 patents on November 21, 2017 and December 4, 2018, respectively. Id. And, as
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1392 Filed 07/19/22 Page 11 of 15 PageID# 34710
`
`discussed above, and as explained by the technical experts, the accused Solo and Alto products
`
`included specific shapes, materials, sizes, positions and functions of the physical structures
`
`substantially similar to those disclosed in the asserted patents.2
`
`
`
`There is no record evidence that Reynolds took any remedial actions. There is no evidence,
`
`for example, that Reynolds checked with its suppliers about infringement, did any investigation of
`
`noninfringement or invalidity, identified any noninfringement or invalidity defenses pre-suit, or
`
`tried to design around the asserted patents. Instead, the evidence shows that there is no
`
`commercially viable design around. Dkt. 1291.3 As a result, a reasonable jury could conclude
`
`that, because of its failed products, significant investments, aspirations to be number one in the
`
`vapor market, and failure to take any remedial actions, Reynolds had strong motive to intentionally
`
`infringe, specific intent to intentionally infringe, and deliberately chose to infringe rather than
`
`remove its products from this highly regulated market. WCM, 721 F.App’x at 970-71.
`
`The evidence shows that Reynolds’ limited options gave it strong motive to intentionally
`
`infringe. Reynolds knew that it could not change its design without obtaining FDA approval, and
`
`the applications it submitted were for products already on the market before the Deeming Rule.
`
`Tr. (6/9/22 pm) at 123:6-124:4, 125:4-16, 135:10-136:15, 151:12-152:3. Reynolds knew Philip
`
`Morris would not license its patents. Tr. (6/8/22 am) at 147:12-148:5. Consequently, Reynolds
`
`was faced with a Hobson’s choice—infringe the asserted patents or remove the products that would
`
`make it $1.4 billion in just three-and-a-half years from the market. On this record, a reasonable
`
`jury could conclude that Reynold intentionally chose to infringe, or was willfully blind to the risk
`
`
`2 The record for a judgement under 50(a) is not yet complete because the trial transcript for 6/10/22
`is currently unavailable and Phillip Morris has not yet presented its rebuttal case on validity.
`3 The jury is entitled to infer that Reynolds, represented by a large team of lawyers, would only
`stipulate to not present evidence on non-infringing alternatives and design-arounds if Reynolds
`had no such evidence to present.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1392 Filed 07/19/22 Page 12 of 15 PageID# 34711
`
`of infringing patents it admitted knew about, rather than remove its products from the market. See
`
`i4i Ltd. P’ship, 598 F.3d at 860 (that “Microsoft did not cease its infringing activity or attempt to
`
`design around” supports a “jury’s finding as to the subjective” knowledge of infringement).
`
`Reynolds’ sole evidence that it did not intentionally continue to use the patented technology
`
`without permission is Dr. Figlar’s self-serving testimony that Reynolds had a corporate policy to
`
`respect patent rights and would not copy another company’s patents. Tr. (6/9/22 pm) at 130:1-13.
`
`But, despite that policy, Reynold failed to present any evidence that it acted on its policy with
`
`regard to the asserted patents, or that Reynolds actually took any actions to respect the property
`
`rights in the two Philip Morris asserted patents Reynolds knew of. As a result, a reasonable jury
`
`could conclude that, because Reynolds failed to act on its corporate policy or reasonably
`
`investigate the patents it admittedly knew about, owned by its “fierce” competitor, Reynolds
`
`intentionally or deliberately chose to infringe by putting its head in the sand. See i4i Ltd. P’ship,
`
`598 F.3d at 860 (that “Microsoft did not cease its infringing activity or attempt to design around”
`
`supports a “jury’s finding as to the subjective” knowledge of infringement).
`
`Separately, it is the sole responsibility of the jury to evaluate credibility of the witnesses.
`
`The jury is entitled to conclude that Dr. Figlar’s self-serving testimony lacks credibility. First, his
`
`testimony that Reynold would not copy a competitor’s patent is irrelevant because Reynolds did
`
`not even develop the designs in the Alto, Reynolds bought it. Second, Dr. Figlar gave facially
`
`inconsistent testimony about Reynold’s product development.4 On direct examination, Dr. Figlar
`
`testified that Reynolds had “its own formulations of e-liquid for the product” and “we develop all
`
`of our own e-liquids, and we wanted to keep those proprietary because we thought that was, you
`
`
`4 Given Dr. Figlar’s 100 deposition and 40 trials, the inconsistency cannot be explained by
`purported inexperience as a witness. Tr. (6/9/22 pm) at 140:21-142:16.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1392 Filed 07/19/22 Page 13 of 15 PageID# 34712
`
`know, basically the Coca-Cola formula for us and these products.” Tr. (6/9/22 pm) at 126:16-
`
`127:13. On cross-examination, Dr. Figlar testified the black-and-white opposite, admitting that
`
`Reynolds “purchased the liquids on the market at the time because … the FDA had locked the
`
`marketplace and we would have to use the liquids that already were in those products on the
`
`marketplace as of August 8, 2016.” Id. at 152:4-18. As a result, a reasonable jury is entitled to
`
`weigh Dr. Figlar’s credibility and, on this record, could easily reject Dr. Figlar’s self-serving
`
`claims and find Reynolds intended to infringe.
`
`B.
`
`There Is No Dispute That Reynolds Knew Of The Asserted Patents And
`Infringement Post-Suit
`
`The record evidence is undisputed that Reynolds knew of the asserted patents and
`
`infringement post-suit. Philip Morris’ infringement claims expressly notified Reynolds of its
`
`infringement on an element-by-element basis. Tr. (6/10/22 am, not received yet). Despite having
`
`knowledge of that infringement, Reynolds continued to sell the accused products without taking
`
`any remedial actions. Reynolds’ actions during this litigation are also properly part of the “totality
`
`of the circumstances.” WCM Indus., 721 F. App’x at 970. Thus, even if Philip Morris’ evidence
`
`of willful infringement is limited to Reynold’s post-litigation conduct (it is not), that alone is
`
`sufficient to present triable issues of willful infringement to the jury.
`
`C.
`
`There Is A Significant Risk Of Wasting Judicial Resources To Not Allow
`Willfulness To Go To The Jury
`
`“Willfulness of behavior is a classical jury question of intent. When trial is had to a jury,
`
`the issue should be decided by the jury.” WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1341. Any decision by the Court to
`
`remove such a credibility-based and highly factual inquiry based on the totality of the
`
`circumstances from the fact-finder will face close scrutiny on appeal. That may be what Reynolds
`
`wants. At every turn, Reynolds has sought to delay adjudication of Philip Morris’ infringement
`
`claims, which have already been unduly delayed because of COVID. At the entry of this
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1392 Filed 07/19/22 Page 14 of 15 PageID# 34713
`
`Courthouse are the words “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.” After all the delays to date, it would
`
`be justice denied if Philip Morris were to prevail on its infringement and damages claims, and then
`
`be subject to a prolonged period of appeal, remand, and retrial based on a decision to remove the
`
`willfulness issue from the jury.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For all the above reasons, Reynolds’ motion for judgment as a matter of law of no
`
`willfulness should be denied.
`
`Dated: June 11, 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
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1392 Filed 07/19/22 Page 15 of 15 PageID# 34714
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Philip Morris Products
`S.A.
`
`
`
`13
`
`