Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1469-2 Filed 04/05/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 41134
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1469-2 Filed 04/05/23 Page 1 of 7 PagelD# 41134
`
`EXHIBIT 58
`EXHIBIT 58
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1469-2 Filed 04/05/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID# 41135
`
`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. 1:20cv00393-LO-TCB
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. AND R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY’S
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, PHILIP
`MORRIS USA, INC., AND PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A.’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-11)
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively, “Reynolds”) hereby respond to Altria Client Services
`
`LLC, Philip Morris USA, Inc., and Philip Morris Products S.A.’s (collectively, “Defendants” or
`
`“Counterclaim Plaintiffs”) First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-11) as follows.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Reynolds has not yet completed discovery relating to this case, and while it has made
`
`reasonable investigation for responsive information, its investigation of the facts is continuing.
`
`Reynolds objects to and will respond to these interrogatories as it interprets and understands each
`
`interrogatory as set forth. Reynolds’s objections and responses to these interrogatories are made
`
`without prejudice to Reynolds’s right to supplement, correct, or otherwise modify the objections
`
`and responses to the extent permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules
`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION, SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1469-2 Filed 04/05/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID# 41136
`
`
`
`At this point in the case, Reynolds has not yet determined the full extent and/or nature of
`
`the injuries it has suffered and continues to suffer as a result of Defendants’ infringement of each
`
`RJR Asserted Patent. Reynolds seeks damages to the extent permissible under the applicable laws
`
`for Defendants’ infringement and, at a minimum, a reasonable royalty based on Defendants’ sales
`
`of the Accused Products, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court. Reynolds also
`
`intends to seek treble damages and attorneys’ fees due to Defendants’ willful infringement of the
`
`RJR Asserted Patents. As Reynolds receives information and documents from Defendants during
`
`discovery, Reynolds will supplement its response to this interrogatory in accordance with the
`
`Court’s Scheduling Order, the deadlines related to expert discovery, and the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`
`
`
`Reynolds contends that its VUSE products and Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ IQOS
`
`products are all part of a category known as “potentially reduced-risk” products, and that each
`
`side’s products compete.
`
`
`
`Reynolds further states that the hypothetical negotiation date is the date when infringement
`
`began, which is subject to further investigation and discovery concerning when the
`
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs first imported, sold, or offered to sell the IQOS products in the
`
`United States. The damages time period will also begin at the date of first infringement, which
`
`will be the subject of further discovery from Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`Reynolds states that the following witnesses are generally knowledgeable about the RJR
`
`Accused Products, the facts concerning the market for those RJR Accused Products, and financial
`
`information concerning those RJR Accused Products: Kara Calderon (Reynolds’s marketing and
`
`distribution of the RJR Accused Products) and Nick Gilley (Reynolds’s financial information
`
`associated with the manufacture and sale of the RJR Accused Products).
`
`
`
`88
`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION, SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1469-2 Filed 04/05/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID# 41137
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`Describe the complete factual and legal basis for Your contention that You are entitled to
`any injunctive relief, including any irreparable injury You have allegedly suffered, and why such
`injury is irreparable, why remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to
`compensate for that injury, why, considering the balance of hardships between You and
`Defendants, a remedy in equity is warranted, why the public interest would not be disserved by a
`permanent injunction, and identify the three (3) individuals most knowledgeable of the foregoing,
`and all Documents and things (by Bates number) You intend to rely on to support Your contention.
`
`OBJECTIONS:
`
`
`
`Reynolds objects to this interrogatory as premature because it seeks information that is the
`
`subject matter of expert reports and discovery that are not yet due. Reynolds objects to this
`
`interrogatory to the extent that the response will require information and discovery from
`
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs that has not yet been made available to Reynolds. Reynolds
`
`objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks an identification of “all”
`
`Documents and things (by Bates number) Reynolds intends to rely on to support its contention that
`
`it is entitled to injunctive relief. Reynolds objects to this interrogatory as composed of multiple
`
`discrete subparts under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, which causes this interrogatory to count as more than
`
`one interrogatory. Reynolds objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks a legal conclusion.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, Reynolds responds as follows:
`
`Reynolds will be irreparably harmed if Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs are allowed to
`
`continue infringing the Asserted Patents after a finding in Reynolds’s favor on infringement and
`
`validity. Such a compulsory license would force Reynolds to endure competition from an
`
`adjudicated, infringing product, over the entire remaining life of the asserted patents, which do not
`
`expire for many years. The harm to Reynolds’s competitive position over the remaining lifetime
`
`of the Asserted Patents is not quantifiable and, therefore, not compensable in money damages—it
`
`is not possible to determine, for example, what Reynolds’s sales of its competing products would
`
`
`
`89
`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION, SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1469-2 Filed 04/05/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID# 41138
`
`be in the absence of infringing competition from Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ IQOS
`
`products. The balance of harms favors Reynolds, because Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs
`
`would, in that situation, have no right to continue using Reynolds’s patented technology. And the
`
`public interest would not be disserved by respecting Reynolds’s patent rights and enforcing its
`
`right to exclude infringing competition. Reynolds also reserves the right to seek permanent
`
`injunctive relief for the patents asserted in the ITC action, after the stay is lifted.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`
`For each RJR Asserted Claim, describe in detail and identify the facts and circumstances
`of the conception and reduction to practice of the purported claimed invention, and any intervening
`diligence, including, without limitation, the earliest date by which the inventors conceived of the
`claimed invention, the earliest date by which the inventors reduced to practice the claimed
`invention, where and when such conception, reduction to practice, or diligence occurred, all
`Documents that refer or relate to such conception, reduction to practice, or diligence, all Persons
`involved in such conception and reduction to practice of the claimed invention, and any intervening
`diligence, and their role in such conception, reduction to practice, or diligence, state all factual and
`legal bases supporting, contradicting, or otherwise relating to any alleged conception and reduction
`to practice; and identify the three (3) most knowledgeable Persons about the facts described in
`Your response.
`
`OBJECTIONS:
`
`Reynolds objects to this interrogatory as overly broad to the extent it seeks an identification
`
`of “all” Documents that refer or relate to the conception and reduction to practice of the claimed
`
`invention for each RJR Asserted Claim and “all” factual and legal bases “supporting, contradicting,
`
`or otherwise relating to” such conception and reduction to practice. Reynolds objects to this
`
`interrogatory as composed of multiple discrete subparts under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, which causes
`
`this interrogatory to count as more than one interrogatory. Reynolds objects to this interrogatory
`
`to the extent it seeks a legal conclusion.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, Reynolds responds as follows:
`
`
`
`90
`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION, SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1469-2 Filed 04/05/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID# 41139
`
`Dated: September 17, 2020
`
`Stephanie E. Parker
`JONES DAY
`1420 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Suite 800
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Telephone: (404) 521-3939
`Facsimile: (404) 581-8330
`Email: separker@jonesday.com
`
`Anthony M. Insogna
`JONES DAY
`4655 Executive Drive
`Suite 1500
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Telephone: (858) 314-1200
`Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
`Email: aminsogna@jonesday.com
`
`William E. Devitt
`JONES DAY
`77 West Wacker
`Suite 3500
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Telephone: (312) 269-4240
`Facsimile: (312) 782-8585
`Email: wdevitt@jonesday.com
`
`Sanjiv P. Laud
`JONES DAY
`90 South Seventh Street
`Suite 4950
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 217-8800
`Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
`Email: slaud@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ David M. Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana (VA Bar No. 42334)
`Ryan B. McCrum
`JONES DAY
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`Telephone: (216) 586-3939
`Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
`Email: dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`Email: rbmccrum@jonesday.com
`
`John J. Normile
`JONES DAY
`250 Vesey Street
`New York, NY 10281
`Tel: (212) 326-3939
`Fax: (212) 755-7306
`Email: jjnormile@jonesday.com
`
`Alexis A. Smith
`JONES DAY
`555 South Flower Street
`Fiftieth Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 243-2653
`Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
`Email: asmith@jonesday.com
`
`Charles B. Molster , III (VA Bar No. 23613)
`The Law Offices of Charles B. Molster III PLLC
`2141 Wisconsin Ave., N.W., Suite M
`Washington, DC 20007
`Telephone: (703) 346-1505
`Email: cmolster@molsterlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings,
`Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`
`
`
`
`
`95
`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION, SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1469-2 Filed 04/05/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID# 41140
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on September 17, 2020, the foregoing was served on counsel for
`
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs using
`
`the
`
`following designated
`
`email
`
`address:
`
`pmiedva.lwteam@lw.com.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 17, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David M Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana (VA Bar No. 42334)
`JONES DAY
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`Telephone: (216) 586-3939
`Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
`Email: dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION, SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`