Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 38 Filed 06/29/20 Page 1 of 14 PageID# 357
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. and
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USA INC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTS S.A.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ PARTIAL MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 38 Filed 06/29/20 Page 2 of 14 PageID# 358
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ IQOS Products .................................................................................... 4
`
`The Complaint’s Allegations .................................................................................. 6
`
`STATEMENT OF LAW..................................................................................................... 6
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`The Complaint Does Not State a Plausible Claim of Direct Infringement ............. 7
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 9
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 38 Filed 06/29/20 Page 3 of 14 PageID# 359
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Asghari-Kamrani v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,
`No. 2:15-cv-478, 2016 WL 1253533 (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 2016) ................................................. 7
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................................................................................ 6, 7
`
`Groove Digital, Inc. v. United Bank,
`Civ. No. 1:18-cv-00966, Dkt. 43 (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 2018) ............................................ 3, 7, 8, 9
`
`Jenkins v. LogicMark, LLC,
`No. 3:16-CV-751-HEH, 2017 WL 376154 (E.D. Va. Jan. 25, 2017)............................. 6, 7, 8, 9
`
`Mician v. Catanzaro,
`No. 2:17-cv-548, 2018 WL 2977398 (E.D. Va. June 13, 2018) ................................................. 7
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)............................................................................................................... 1, 7
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 38 Filed 06/29/20 Page 4 of 14 PageID# 360
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants Altria Client Services LLC (“ACS”), Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”),
`
`and Philip Morris Products S.A. (“PMP”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move to dismiss the direct
`
`infringement claims of Counts One and Two of the Complaint filed by RAI Strategic Holdings,
`
`Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 12(b)(6).
`
`Plaintiffs appear to have brought this action in the hopes of stopping PMP’s innovative
`
`IQOS heated tobacco system, which has a proven track record of switching smokers away from
`
`combustible cigarettes, from disrupting its core business in combustible cigarettes and overtaking
`
`its secondary line of e-vapor products. Having failed to develop a competing offering in the heated
`
`tobacco space, Plaintiffs apparently now seek to block that space in its entirety by bringing this
`
`meritless litigation. But in their haste to do so, Plaintiffs have failed to meet this Court’s minimum
`
`pleading requirements.
`
`PMP is the global leader and pioneer in reduced-risk products (“RRPs”), having invested
`
`over seven billion dollars since 2008 to develop reduced-risk alternatives to combustible cigarettes.
`
`IQOS, the product accused of infringement here, is PMP’s flagship RRP. IQOS heats rather than
`
`burns tobacco to produce an aerosol instead of smoke (known as a “Heat-Not-Burn” or “HNB”),
`
`thereby avoiding many of the harmful chemicals generated by the combustion process. To date,
`
`over 10.6 million smokers have switched to IQOS and given up smoking for good. This number
`
`grows daily.
`
`In 2019, after a lengthy review, the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)
`
`granted PMP’s request for a pre-market authorization to commercialize IQOS (through its
`
`distributor, Altria) in the United States. In granting that request, the FDA determined that
`
`marketing IQOS “would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.” See, e.g., FDA
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 38 Filed 06/29/20 Page 5 of 14 PageID# 361
`
`
`
`permits sale of IQOS Tobacco Heating System through premarket tobacco product application
`
`pathway, FDA (Apr. 30, 2019), https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-
`
`permits-sale-iqos-tobacco-heating-system-through-premarket-tobacco-product-application-
`
`pathway (“FDA Apr. PA”). To date, no other HNB or e-vapor product (including the Vuse e-
`
`vapor products sold by Plaintiffs) has received such an authorization.
`
`Apparently concerned by the commercial threat posed by IQOS, Plaintiffs rushed to bring
`
`this case.1 See, e.g., Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 25-39. While Plaintiffs seek to avail themselves of this Court’s
`
`typical short time to trial schedule, they have failed to satisfy their minimum pleading requirements
`
`for doing so. Indeed, properly putting a defendant on notice of the basic facts underlying a
`
`plaintiff’s allegations is the quid pro quo necessary for plaintiffs to avail themselves of the Court’s
`
`jurisdiction. There is no excuse for Plaintiffs’ failure to do so here, which needlessly prejudices
`
`Defendants, because Plaintiffs have access to all the facts to properly plead. The Asserted Patents
`
`are public records and the accused products are commercially available. Plaintiffs also possess all
`
`the information necessary to show how each and every element of at least one claim from each
`
`asserted patent are allegedly practiced by the accused products. Instead, Plaintiffs’ Complaint
`
`makes bald, conclusory assertions without any supporting factual allegations. Because Plaintiffs
`
`have failed to identify the factual bases for their infringement claims, the direct infringement
`
`claims of Counts One and Two should be dismissed.
`
`
`1 The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 8,314,591 (the “’591 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,814,268
`(the “’268 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,839,238 (the “’238 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,901,123 (the
`“’123 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,930,915 (the “’915 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,492,542 (the
`“’542 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). On June 19, 2020, the Court stayed all
`proceedings relating to the ’238, ’123, and ’915 patents pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659. See Dkt.
`27.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 38 Filed 06/29/20 Page 6 of 14 PageID# 362
`
`
`
`Counts One and Two fail to meet the pleading standard for direct infringement because the
`
`Complaint does not allege how each and every limitation of any claim of each of these two asserted
`
`patents purportedly reads on the accused IQOS devices. As this Court has explained, that is the
`
`minimum the law requires for claims of patent infringement. See, e.g., Groove Digital, Inc. v.
`
`United Bank, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-00966, Dkt. 43 (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 2018) (O’Grady, J.) (stating that
`
`a patent complaint is sufficient if it (1) identifies specific claims alleged to be infringed,
`
`(2) specifies the features of the accused product that correspondent to the limitations of each
`
`asserted claim, and (3) identifies with particularity how each allegedly infringing features infringes
`
`those claims) (attached hereto as Ex. A).
`
`Defendants only move to dismiss Counts One and Two because the Court stayed Counts
`
`Three, Four, and Five of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a). See Dkt. 27 (granting
`
`Defendants’ motion to stay co-pending ITC patent claims). Based on Plaintiffs’ deficient
`
`allegations, as set forth in the existing Complaint, Defendants will move to dismiss those counts if
`
`and when the Court lifts the stay. Defendants have not moved to dismiss Count Six (i.e. the ’542
`
`patent) because Defendants understand Plaintiff’s contentions for that patent. In fact, Plaintiffs
`
`filed for the ’542 patent in September, 2019 and improperly attempted to draw claims directed at
`
`the accused products. Plaintiffs rushed this application through the Patent Office in just three
`
`months of prosecution. But in their rushed attempt to draft claims directed at the accused products,
`
`these claims are far removed from the invention possessed and described by the inventors when
`
`they filed the original patent application on August 9, 2011. As a result, Defendants stand ready
`
`to prove that these claims are invalid for, among other things, lack of written description.
`
`The Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s direct infringement claims of Counts One and Two of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 38 Filed 06/29/20 Page 7 of 14 PageID# 363
`
`
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`
`Defendants’ IQOS Products
`
`While Philip Morris International, PMP’s ultimate parent, built its success on the basis of
`
`combustible cigarettes, it has committed itself to building its future on the basis of smoke-free
`
`products that are substantially less harmful than combustible cigarettes. Consistent with that
`
`vision, PMP has emerged as the global leader and pioneer in reduced-risk alternatives to
`
`combustible cigarettes. PMP has invested over seven billion dollars since 2008 on research and
`
`development relating to RRPs such as IQOS. And it has amassed a substantial portfolio of
`
`intellectual property covering numerous innovations relating to smoke-free technologies directed
`
`at both heated tobacco and e-vapor products.
`
`PMP first launched IQOS, an HNB product, in select cities in Europe and Asia in 2014. It
`
`is now sold in over 50 countries throughout the world. To date, over 10.6 million smokers have
`
`switched to IQOS and given up smoking for good, and this number is growing daily. PMP
`
`conducted 10 clinical studies on IQOS and published over 340 peer-reviewed articles on RRPs.
`
`There are also over 30 independent studies corroborating PMP’s findings with respect to IQOS.
`
`Among the findings: IQOS produces an aerosol with 90 to 95% less toxins than cigarette smoke.
`
`NZ Case, Gilchrist Br. ¶ 40, https://www.pmiscience.com/resources/docs/default-source/NCDC-
`
`vs-Morris/nz_brief-of-evidence-of-moira-gilchrist_february-2018.pdf. Aside from reducing the
`
`harms associated with smoking, a successful RRP must also be a viable alternative to continued
`
`smoking. Indeed, no matter how much less harmful any new RRP may be, it will be of no use if
`
`smokers do not like it, or will not switch to it completely and continue to smoke as well. To that
`
`end, conversion rates for IQOS – meaning rates of smokers who go from smoking cigarettes to
`
`using IQOS for at least 95% of their daily tobacco consumption – have been significantly higher
`
`than they are for e-vapor products, to the tune of 73% vs. less than 25%. Id., Gilchrist Br. ¶ 26;
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 38 Filed 06/29/20 Page 8 of 14 PageID# 364
`
`
`
`see also Philip Morris Products SA’s Comments to Complainants’ Public Interest Statement
`
`(attached hereto as Ex. B).
`
`In 2019, after a lengthy review, the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)
`
`granted PMP’s request for a pre-market authorization to commercialize IQOS (through its
`
`distributor, Altria) in the United States. In granting that request, the FDA determined that
`
`marketing IQOS “would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.” See FDA Apr. PA
`
`(noting that “the carbon monoxide exposure from IQOS aerosol is comparable to environmental
`
`exposure, and levels of acrolein and formaldehyde are 89% to 95% and 66% to 91% lower than
`
`from combustible cigarettes, respectively”). To date, no other HNB or e-vapor product has
`
`received such an authorization.
`
`Plaintiffs, on the other hand, have tried—and failed—to market a heated tobacco system.
`
`Plaintiffs tried to launch an HNB product called Eclipse in 1996. Indeed, in twenty-four years,
`
`Eclipse has never gotten past test marketing. HNB and Other Prods., EVOLVING CIGARETTE (last
`
`visited June 22, 2020), http://www.evolving cigarette.com/cigarette-automation-2/heat-not-burn-
`
`and-other-products-2/. Eclipse bears no semblance to the innovative and independently patented
`
`IQOS Products. After years of what it admits was “minimal success”2 and failed efforts to
`
`rebrand its failed product (under the name Revo), Plaintiffs’ affiliate Reynolds American, Inc.
`
`discontinued production after realizing that “consumer adoption rates failed to meet
`
`expectations.”3 Plaintiffs then made a considered decision to essentially abandon the HNB
`
`
`2 Smoke this! Reynolds launches a new cigarette that heats the tobacco instead of burning it,
`(November
`17,
`2014),
`https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
`ASSOCIATED PRESS
`2838016/Reynolds-launching-heat-not-burn-cigarette.html.
`3 Mickle, Tripp, Reynolds American Raises Its Earnings Outlook, (July 28, 2015),
`https://www.wsj.com/articles/reynolds-american-lifts-earnings-outlook-1438083606
`(attached
`hereto as Ex. C).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 38 Filed 06/29/20 Page 9 of 14 PageID# 365
`
`
`
`market in the United States and pivoted to e-vapor products. See generally Vuse Vapor, RJR
`
`VAPOR CO. (2020), https://vusevapor.com/. To date, Plaintiffs have still not received FDA
`
`marketing approval for any of their e-vapor products.
`
`
`
`The Complaint’s Allegations
`
`The Complaint fails to allege how the accused IQOS Products meet each and every
`
`limitation of any of the asserted claims for Counts One and Two. See Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 47-66. Instead,
`
`the Complaint improperly parrots language from one claim per Asserted Patent for Counts One
`
`and Two. See id. ¶¶ 16-17. For these asserted claims, the Complaint fails to provide a claim chart
`
`or any analysis that correspond the claim elements with the features of the IQOS Products for
`
`Counts One and Two. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 47-66 (providing an exemplary infringement allegations
`
`without any explanation of Plaintiffs’ infringement theory). They make only generalized and
`
`conclusory statements purporting to (mis)characterize the IQOS Products. Id. ¶¶ 25-39.
`
`Consequently, Plaintiffs’ allegations for Counts One and Two are not legally competent and fail
`
`as a matter of law.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF LAW
`
`Plaintiffs’ factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
`
`level” and must be sufficient “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp.
`
`v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547, 570 (2007). “A Complaint need not assert ‘detailed factual
`
`allegations,’ but must contain ‘more than labels and conclusions or a ‘formulaic recitation of the
`
`elements of a cause of action.’” Jenkins v. LogicMark, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-751-HEH, 2017 WL
`
`376154, at *2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 25, 2017) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Threadbare recitals
`
`of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pleadings that are “no more than conclusions . . . are
`
`not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 679.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 38 Filed 06/29/20 Page 10 of 14 PageID# 366
`
`
`
`Twombly and Iqbal’s requirements “are strictly applied” to allegations of patent
`
`infringement. Jenkins, 2017 WL 376154, at *3 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs must plead sufficient
`
`details for Defendants to “ascertain exactly what claims should [be] alleged to be infringed and
`
`how they are infringed.” Id. (citation omitted). The Complaint must not only (1) identify specific
`
`claims alleged to be infringed, but also (2) specify the features of the accused product that allegedly
`
`correspond to each limitation of the asserted claims, and (3) “identif[y] with particularity how each
`
`allegedly infringing feature infringes” the asserted claims. Groove Digital, No. 1:18-cv-00966,
`
`Dkt. 43 (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 2018) (O’Grady, J.) (citing Jenkins, 2017 WL 376154, at *3). Failure
`
`to plead such detail in the Complaint is “clearly impermissible.” Jenkins, 2017 WL 376154, at *3.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
` The Complaint Does Not State a Plausible Claim of Direct Infringement
`
`Counts One and Two of the Complaint fail to provide a sufficient factual basis to allege
`
`that the accused IQOS Products practice each element of the asserted claims. See FED. R. CIV. P.
`
`12(b)(6). The Complaint must “specif[y] the features of the alleged infringing product that
`
`correspond to the limitations of each asserted claim.” Groove Digital, No. 1:18-cv-00966, Dkt.
`
`43 (Ex. A); see also Jenkins, 2017 WL 376154, at *3; Asghari-Kamrani v. United Servs. Auto.
`
`Ass’n, No. 2:15-cv-478, 2016 WL 1253533, at *3-4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 2016). This Court
`
`recognizes that “fail[ing] to identify which elements of [the accused products] correspond with
`
`which limitations, if any, in the asserted claims,” is “particularly problematic” where—as here—
`
`the asserted claims “include numerous limitations as part of one claim.” Mician v. Catanzaro, No.
`
`2:17-cv-548, 2018 WL 2977398, at *4 (E.D. Va. June 13, 2018).
`
`Here, the Complaint merely parrots the language of one independent claim from each
`
`Asserted Patent from Counts One and Two and then purports to describe the IQOS Products in
`
`conclusory and generalized terms. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 16-17, 25-39. The Complaint fails to specify the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 38 Filed 06/29/20 Page 11 of 14 PageID# 367
`
`
`
`features of the accused product that purportedly correspond to each limitation of any one of the
`
`asserted claims, and fails to identify specifically how each allegedly infringing feature infringes,
`
`even for the purported exemplary claims. With numerous structural features included in each of
`
`the asserted claims, Defendants are left to guess which claimed features purportedly correspond to
`
`any particular feature of the their IQOS Products. Especially in this Court, where cases reach trial
`
`within a year, Plaintiffs’ unsubstantiated and cursory allegations are simply not good enough.
`
`Plaintiffs’ failure prejudices Defendants because Plaintiffs have effectively hidden their
`
`infringement theories. For example, claim 1 of the ’542 patent requires “a smoking article” that
`
`includes “a heating projection . . . configurable to be inserted into the disposable aerosol forming
`
`substance” and a “heating member comprising an electrically resistive metal.” Dkt. 1 ¶ 24. At
`
`the same time, Claim 16 of the ’268 patent requires “an electrical resistance heater in contact with
`
`the tobacco material.” Id. ¶ 17. Thus, it appears that certain of Plaintiffs’ claims require a “heating
`
`projection” and a “heating member” while others require an “electrical resistance heater.” But
`
`Plaintiffs fail to identify what feature of the IQOS Products purportedly corresponds to (i) the
`
`heating projection and heating member, and what feature allegedly corresponds to (ii) the electrical
`
`resistance heater. Defendants should not be forced to guess which features of their IQOS Products
`
`Plaintiffs believe correspond to which of the “numerous” claim limitations.
`
`Jenkins and Groove Digital are instructive. In Jenkins, the plaintiffs only recited “several
`
`‘exemplary’ [patent] claims” and gave a “general overview” of the accused products. 2017 WL
`
`376154, at *3. This Court dismissed direct infringement claims for “fail[ing] to specify which
`
`features of LogicMark’s products correspond to the limitations of any claims in the identified
`
`patents” and “not identify[ing] with any particularity how each allegedly infringing feature of the
`
`accused products infringes any of the named patents.” Id. (emphasis original). Applying Jenkins,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 38 Filed 06/29/20 Page 12 of 14 PageID# 368
`
`
`
`this Court in Groove Digital dismissed patent infringement claims for failing to “explain what
`
`features of Defendant’s product infringe upon its patent . . . [and] identify with particularity how
`
`any allegedly infringing feature infringes Plaintiff’s patent.” Groove Digital, No. 1:18-cv-00966,
`
`Dkt. 43 at 2. Here, the Complaint’s failure to specify which features of the IQOS Product
`
`corresponds to which features of the claims or identify with any particularity how each feature of
`
`the IQOS Products infringes is clearly deficient. Without more, “[Defendants are] entirely unable
`
`to properly defend [themselves].” Jenkins, 2017 WL 376154, at *3.
`
`Under this Court’s controlling law, the Complaint’s direct infringement allegations are
`
`deficient as a matter of law. Plaintiffs’ claims for direct infringement should therefore be
`
`dismissed for Counts One and Two of the Complaint.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`WHEREFORE Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ direct
`
`infringement claims of Counts One and Two of Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed under Rule
`
`12(b)(6), and that the Court grant any other relief it deems just.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 38 Filed 06/29/20 Page 13 of 14 PageID# 369
`
`
`
`Dated: June 29, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Maximilian A. Grant
`Maximilian A. Grant (VSB No. 91792)
`maximilian.grant@lw.com
`Matthew J. Moore (pro hac vice pending)
`matthew.moore@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Ste. 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 637-2200; Fax: (202) 637-2201
`
`Clement J. Naples (pro hac vice pending)
`clement.naples@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`885 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022-4834
`Tel: (212) 906-1200; Fax: (212) 751-4864
`
`Gregory K. Sobolski (pro hac vice pending)
`Gregory.sobolski@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: (415) 391-0600; Fax: (415) 395-8095
`
`Brenda L. Danek (pro hac vice pending)
`brenda.danek@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
`Chicago, IL 60611
`Tel: (312) 876-7700; Fax: (312) 993-9767
`
`Counsel for Defendants Altria Client
`Services LLC, Philip Morris USA Inc., and
`Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 38 Filed 06/29/20 Page 14 of 14 PageID# 370
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 29th day of June, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`was served using the Court’s CM/ECF system, with electronic notification of such filing to all
`
`counsel of record:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Maximilian A. Grant
`Maximilian A. Grant (VSB No. 91792)
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 637-2200
`Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
`Email: max.grant@lw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Altria Client
`Services LLC, Philip Morris USA Inc., and
`Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`