Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1398-7 Filed 07/20/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 34899
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1398-7 Filed 07/20/22 Page 1 of 3 PagelD# 34899
`
`EXHIBIT 7
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1398-7 Filed 07/20/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 34900
`
`
`
`RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.
`
`and
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`v.
`
`Altria Client Services LLC,
`
`Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
`
` and Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TC
`
`
`
`Third Amended and Supplemental Opening Expert Report of Paul
`K. Meyer
`
`
`
`TM Financial Forensics, LLC
`
`April 15, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION – SUBJECT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1398-7 Filed 07/20/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 34901
`
` Liu Loi Ying (“Andy”) Engineering Director and former Executive Director (from
`2011-2013) at Minilogic Device Corporation Limited (“Minilogic”) and the sole
`inventor named on the ’374 Patent6 (Dec. 4, 2020);
` Arno Rinker, former co-founder of Wedegree GmbH (“Wedegree”) and the sole
`inventor named on the ’265 Patent (Dec. 7, 2020);
` Dr. John Abraham, technical expert providing opinions related to the ’911 and ’556
`Patents (Dec. 1, 2020 and Feb. 22, 2021);
` Mr. Joseph McAlexander, technical expert providing opinions related to the ’545
`and ’374 Patents (Dec. 5, 2020, and Feb. 20, 2021, and Feb. 23, 2021); and
` Dr. Henry Walbrink, technical expert providing opinions related to the ’265 Patent
`(Jan. 28, 2021); and
` Stacy Ehrlich, attorney with Kleinfield Kaplan and Becker LLP, providing opinions
`related to regulatory review of e-vapor and potentially reduced risk products (Feb.
`24, 2021).
`I understand that certain discovery remains ongoing as of the date of this Report. I
`
`therefore reserve the right to amend, modify, or supplement my opinions if additional
`
`information becomes available, including any information identified by Reynolds or any
`
`third party; testimony from depositions yet to taken; any opinions rendered by Reynolds’
`
`experts; or any relevant orders from the Court. I also reserve the right to provide rebuttal
`
`opinions in response to opinions from any expert and testimony from any fact witness.
`
`22.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`23. Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages adequate to compensate for
`
`RJRV’s infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for RJRV’s use of
`
`the inventions claimed in the Asserted Patents.
`
`24.
`
`In this case, a reasonable running royalty is the appropriate form of damages to
`
`compensate Plaintiffs for RJRV’s use of the inventions claimed in the Asserted Patents.
`
`25. For purposes of my analysis, I determined three separate hypothetical negotiation dates.
`
`The First Hypothetical Negotiation would be in March 2013 for the ’545 Patent; the
`
`Second Hypothetical Negotiation would be in August 2018 for the ’265, ’911, and ’556
`
`
`6 http://www.megalogic.com.hk/about-us/management-team?lang=en: DEF_PUB_EDVA000021958-959 (at 958-
`959).
`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION – 10 of 182
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`