`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1398-6 Filed 07/20/22 Page 1 of 3 PagelD# 34896
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1398-6 Filed 07/20/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 34897
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. AND R.J.
`REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY
`
`
`Plaintiffs and
`Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`
`v.
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USA INC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTS S.A.
`
`
`Defendants and
`Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT PROPOSED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS [REYNOLDS EDITS, AND
`PMI/ALTRIA FURTHER EDITS, AND REYNOLDS FURTHER EDITS]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1398-6 Filed 07/20/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 34898
`
`63.47. Damages – Lump Sum vs. Running Royalty – PROPOSEDDISPUTED
`[PMI/ALTRIA ONLY PROPOSAL]
`
`A reasonable royalty can be paid either in the form of a one-time lump sum payment or as
`
`a “running royalty.” Either method is designed to compensate the patent holder based on the
`
`infringer’s use of the patented technology. It is up to you, based on the evidence, to decide what
`
`type of royalty is appropriate in this case. Certain fundamental differences exist between lump-
`
`sum agreements and running-royalty agreements.53
`
`
`
`Authorities:
`
`FCBA Model Patent Jury Instructions, No. 5.7 (2020); Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580
`F.3d 1301, 1329-30 (Fed. Circ. 2009).
`
`
`
`
`
`53 Reynolds objects to this instruction as irrelevant to the issues at trial and likely to confuse the
`jury. If the Court concludes that the instruction should be given, Reynolds requests that a line be
`added to the verdict form instructing the jury to fill in the lump sum damages award (if any) that
`they find PMI/Altria have proven.
`
`70
`
`
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
