throbber
Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 560-4 Filed 04/15/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 12471
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 560-4 Filed 04/15/21 Page 1 of 6 Page|D# 12471
`
`EXHIBIT 31
`
`EXHIBIT 31
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 560-4 Filed 04/15/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 12472
`
`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,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:20cv00393-LO-TCB
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USA, INC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTS S.A.,
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`
`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 FIFTH SET OF
`REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 264-287)
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 36 and Local Rule 26(C), 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”) Fifth Set of Requests for Admission
`
`(Nos. 264-287) 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 and will respond to these Requests for Admission as it interprets and understands
`
`each request as set forth. Reynolds’s objections and responses to these requests 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 for
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 560-4 Filed 04/15/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 12473
`
`OBJECTIONS:
`
`Reynolds objects to this Request as an improper substitute for discovery devices such as
`
`interrogatories or requests for production. See Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Johnson, 272 F.R.D.
`
`177, 183 (S.D. W. Va. 2010) (noting that Rule 36(a) requests “are not a discovery device” (quoting
`
`Harris v. Koenig, 271 F.R.D. 356, 372 (D.D.C. 2010))). Reynolds objects to this Request as
`
`seeking disputed legal and factual contentions.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Subject to and without waiving its Objections, Reynolds states that it lacks sufficient
`
`information about the MarkTen Product to determine whether it practices claim 1 of the ’545
`
`Patent under the Court’s claim constructions, and therefore admits.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 270:
`
`
`
`Admit that Nu Mark LLC’s MarkTen Elite Product practices one or more claims of the
`
`’545 Patent under the Court’s claim constructions.
`
`OBJECTIONS:
`
`Reynolds objects to this Request as an improper substitute for discovery devices such as
`
`interrogatories or requests for production. See Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Johnson, 272 F.R.D.
`
`177, 183 (S.D. W. Va. 2010) (noting that Rule 36(a) requests “are not a discovery device” (quoting
`
`Harris v. Koenig, 271 F.R.D. 356, 372 (D.D.C. 2010))). Reynolds objects to this Request as
`
`seeking disputed legal and factual contentions. Reynolds objects to this Request to the extent it
`
`seeks information from entities other than Reynolds.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Subject to and without waiving its Objections, Reynolds admits that Nu Mark LLC’s
`
`MarkTen Elite Product practices one or more claims of the ’545 Patent as those claims are
`
`construed and asserted by Defendants. See March 24, 2021, Expert Report of Travis Blalock
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 560-4 Filed 04/15/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 12474
`
`¶¶ 159-67. Reynolds denies that Nu Mark LLC’s MarkTen Elite Product practices one or more
`
`claims of the ’545 Patent as Reynolds applies the claims. See March 24, 2021, Expert Report of
`
`Travis Blalock ¶¶ 159-67; see also Reynolds’s Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 28
`
`(Mar. 29, 2021).
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 271:
`
`
`
`Admit that Nu Mark LLC’s MarkTen Elite Product does not practice one or more claims
`
`of the ’545 Patent under the Court’s claim constructions.
`
`OBJECTIONS:
`
`Reynolds objects to this Request as an improper substitute for discovery devices such as
`
`interrogatories or requests for production. See Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Johnson, 272 F.R.D.
`
`177, 183 (S.D. W. Va. 2010) (noting that Rule 36(a) requests “are not a discovery device” (quoting
`
`Harris v. Koenig, 271 F.R.D. 356, 372 (D.D.C. 2010))). Reynolds objects to this Request as
`
`seeking disputed legal and factual contentions. Reynolds objects to this Request to the extent it
`
`seeks information from entities other than Reynolds.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Subject to and without waiving its Objections, Reynolds admits that Nu Mark LLC’s
`
`MarkTen Elite Product does not practice one or more claims of the ’545 Patent as Reynolds applies
`
`the claims. See March 24, 2021, Expert Report of Travis Blalock ¶¶ 159-67; see also Reynolds’s
`
`Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 28 (Mar. 29, 2021). Reynolds denies that Nu Mark
`
`LLC’s MarkTen Elite Product does not practice one or more claims of the ’545 Patent as those
`
`claims are construed and asserted by Defendants. See March 24, 2021, Expert Report of Travis
`
`Blalock ¶¶ 159-67.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 560-4 Filed 04/15/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 12475
`
`Dated: April 2, 2021
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 560-4 Filed 04/15/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 12476
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on April 2, 2021, the foregoing was served on counsel for
`
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs using
`
`the
`
`following designated
`
`email
`
`address:
`
`pmiedva.lwteam@lw.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 2, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket