Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 491-9 Filed 03/12/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 11081
`
`Exhibit I
`
`(Public)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 491-9 Filed 03/12/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 11082
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 491-9 Filed 03/12/21 Page 2 of 6 Page|D# 11082
`
`JONES DAY
`
`90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET ' SUITE 4950 . MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402
`
`TELEPHONE: +1.6l2.217.8800 . FACSIMILEZ + I .844.345.3 I 78
`
`DIRECT NUMBER: (612) 217-8879
`SLAUDOJONESDAYLOM
`
`March 2, 2021
`
`CONTAINS CBI - SUBJECT TO
`PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Jennifer Koh, Esq.
`Latham & Watkins, LLP
`
`12670 High Bluff Drive
`San Diego, Califomia 92130
`Jennifer.Koh@lw.com
`
`Re:
`
`RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Altria Client Services LLC, Case No.
`1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB (ED. Va. 1
`
`Dear Jennifer:
`
`issues ertainin to the ’374 and ’545 atents.
`
`I write re ardin several discove
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Please provide your availability for a meet and confer on
`
`the issues in this letter no later than 2 pm Eastern on Thursday, March 4. These issues are of
`critical importance, and time is of the essence.
`
`WrongZuIly withheld, recently Qroduced documents. On October 14, 2020, Reynolds
`served several requests for production pertaining to the ’374 patent. See Plaintiffs’ Fifth Set of
`Requests for Production to Defendants (Nos. 277-332) (in particular nos. 278-294). Among
`other things, these requests sought documents related to Altria’s relationships with Minilogic and
`Smart Chip, the former owners of the ’374 patent family, as well as any puff sensors known to
`Minilogic, Smart Chip, or Altria that may be prior art to the 2015 filing date of the application
`leading to the ’374 patent. Request for production no. 293 specifically calls for the production of
`documents relating to puff sensors ‘Vvith non-metallic diaphragms, including diaphragms made
`from .. . soft and resilient plastic materials such as a PPS (Polyphenylene Sulfide). . . .”
`
`On November 27, after Defendants failed to produce all responsive documents, Reynolds
`filed a motion to compel production of all responsive materials in Defendants’ possession,
`custody, or control responsive to the requests described above, including documents in the
`possession of Minilogic and/or Smart Chip. See Dkt. 380. In opposition to the motion, Altria
`averred that it had agreed, before the motion was filed, to produce all responsive docmnents
`within its possession, custody, or control, including documents in the possession of Minilogic
`and Smart Chip. Dkt. 406. Defendants made multiple productions of documents that week, and
`
`AMSTERDAM I ATLANTA I BEIJING I BOSTON I BRISBANE I BRUSSELS I CHICAGO I CLEVELAND I COLUMBUS I DALLAS I DETROIT
`DUBAI
`I DUSSELDORF I FRANKFURT I HONG KONG I HOUSTON I
`IRVINE I LONDON I LOS ANGELES I MADRID I MELBOURNE
`MEXICO CITY I MIAMI
`I MILAN I MINNEAPOLIS I MOSCOW I MUNICH I NEWYORK I PARIS I PERTH I PITTSBURGH I SAN DIEGO
`SAN FRANCISCO I SAO PAULO I SAUDI ARABIA I SHANGHAI I SILICON VALLEY I SINGAPORE I SYDNEY I TAIPEI I TOKYO I WASHINGTON
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 491-9 Filed 03/12/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 11083
`Case 1:20-cv-OO393-LO-TCB Document 491-9 Filed 03/12/21 Page 3 of 6 Page|D# 11083
`
`JONES DAY
`
`Jennifer Koh, Esq.
`March 2, 2021
`
`Page 2
`
`on December 4, at the hearing before Magistrate Judge Buchanan, Mr. Grant represented to
`Judge Buchanan that Defendants’ production of responsive documents was “complete.” Tr. of
`Dec. 4, Hearing at 9:21-22.
`
`Defendants’ representations to the Court notwithstanding, Defendants produced and cited
`in expert reports on February 24 new documents that were responsive to Reynolds’s requests.
`
`to osition that
`
`In addition to contradicting Defendants’ representations to the Court that Defendants’
`production of responsive documents was complete, these new documents and Mr. Meyer’s
`discussion of them suggest that there are more 1mp1‘oduced documents responsive to Reynolds’s
`longstanding requests and were the subject of Reynolds’s previous motion to compel.
`Defendants must
`roduce all documents in their files or those of Minilo ic and Smart Chip
`
`related to
`
`
`
`
`
`efendants must also produce any other doc1unents responsive to
`Reyno s’s RFPs, mc 11 mg any other documents pertainin to uff sensors known to
`Defendants, Smart Chi
`. or Minilo ic rior to Jul 2015.
`
`these documents no later than March 5.
`
`We request that you produce all of
`
`Other resgonsive docmnents. In addition to the issues posed by Defendants’ recent
`production and reliance on previously withheld doc1unents, Defendants’ productions during the
`pendency of Reynolds’s motion to compel suggest that there are other. unproduced documents.
`Please confnm that Defendants have produced all documents from the following file paths. If
`not, Defendant must produce those documents by March 5.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 491-9 Filed 03/12/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 11084
`Case 1:20-cv-OO393-LO-TCB Document 491-9 Filed 03/12/21 Page 4 of 6 Page|D# 11084
`
`JONES DAY
`
`Jennifer Koh, Esq.
`March 2, 2021
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Minilogic and Smart Cilia. In the coru'se of the motion to compel, Defendants
`represented to the Corut that they had obtained and produced all documents from Minilogic and
`Smart Chip that were within their power to obtain. Dkt. 406. But Defendants’ own motion
`papers demonstrate that Defendants’ effort to obtain all responsive documents from these
`contractually related third parties remains incomplete.
`
`For example, Mr. McNeely’s declaration confmns that Defendants only contacted Mr.
`Lam to search for docrunents responsive to Reynolds’s requests for production nos. 278—288,
`293, and 294 shortly before Defendants filed their opposition, and that Mr. Lam provided no
`assistance related to Minilogic’s docmnents. Defendants apparently made no other attempts to
`contact Minilogic despite the fact that they have been in persistent contact with Mr. Lin, the
`inventor of the ’374 patent who was a longtime Minilogic executive and appears to be currently
`employed by Minilogic’s parent company, Megalogic.
`
`These perfrmctory collection efforts were borne out in Defendants’ meager production‘
`which contained only two crnnulative documents fiom Smart Chip (the sum total of its
`production in this case) and nothing from Minilogic. Defendants must immediately rmdertake to
`collect relevant documents from Smart Chip and Minilogic through all avenues available to
`them, including Mr. Lam and Mr. Liu.
`
`While Defendants re resented to the Court that Minilo ic and Smart Chi were “not
`
`related,” Dkt. 406 at 2,
`
`
`
`De en ntst ere ore must pro uce Mmr ogrc’s responsrve ocuments, w c
`failed to do. We request that you produce all such documents by March 12.
`
`t ey ave so far
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 491-9 Filed 03/12/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 11085
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 491-9 Filed 03/12/21 Page 5 of 6 Page|D# 11085
`
`JONES DAY
`
`Jennifer Koh, Esq.
`March 2, 2021
`
`Page 4
`
`Hawes/30(bu6z degosifions. The same day that Mr. Grant represented to the Cornt
`Defendants’ document productions related to the ’374 atent were com lete, Mr. Hawes testified
`
`at de osition as Altria’s cor orate desi
`
`Relatedly, as demonstrated by the deposition transcript, Mr. Hawes was unprepared to
`testify as to the full scope of Reynolds’s topic no. 66. Reynolds therefore requests another
`deposition with Mr. Hawes or another witness re ared to discuss the remainin sco e of
`Re
`olds’s to ic no. 66 —
`
`Similarly, Defendants’ corporate designee on topics related to the prosecution of the ’374
`and ’545 atents, Mr. Manson, was 1m re ared to discuss the rosecutions of those atents,
`
`_ Defendants mustproduce a witness (orwitnesses)knowledgeable onReynolds’s
`
`topic no. 60 with respect to the ’374 and ’545 patents.
`
`Please identify Defendants’ additional witnesses for these topics by March 5.
`
`’545 eaten! Ql'osecution historv. Defendants recently produced several documents
`apparently relating to the prosecution of the ’545 patent. Reynolds served RFPs on August 31
`asking for all documents and things related to the conce tion and reduction to ractice of that
`.
`
`., re uest nos. 125, 153, 160.
`
`
`The deadline for substantial completion of document review was
`
`October 23. Defendants have no reasonable excuse for delaying production of these materials
`until now. after opening expert reports were prepared and served. If Defendants seek to rely on
`those materials, Reynolds reserves all rights to preclude Defendants’ reliance on these rmtimely
`produce documents.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 491-9 Filed 03/12/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 11086
`
`
`
`Jennifer Koh, Esq.
`March 2, 2021
`Page 5
`
`Finally, Defendants have never produced a full version of the Panasonic publication from
`which excerpts were submitted to the patent office as prior art in the prosecution history of the
`’545 patent. See DEF_PUB_EDVA000014784. This document is relevant to at least Reynolds’s
`requests for production nos. 148-150, 154, 155, 163, and 164. Defendants must produce the full
`version of the Panasonic publication. We request that you do so by March 10.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`
`
`
`Sanjiv P. Laud
`
`
`
`