Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 593 Filed 05/05/21 Page 1 of 31 PageID# 13606
`
`IN THE 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. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`REDACTED
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE
`SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORTS
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 593 Filed 05/05/21 Page 2 of 31 PageID# 13607
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................ ....................... ....... ...................... ....... ................................................... 1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................. .. ........................... .. .. ................. 2
`LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................................................ 4
`
`ARGUMENT .. .......................................... .. ......... .................. .. ................ ........................................... ........ 6
`DR. ABRAHAM'S UNTIMELY DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS OPINION .................... 6
`I.
`
`A.
`
`B. Defendants Waited Until After The Close of Fact Discove1y To Introduce Dr.
`Abraham's Opinion Of Inftingement Under The Doctrine Of Equivalents ............................. 8
`
`C. Dr. Abraham's New Theo1y Goes Far Beyond "Supplemental Disclosure" .......................... 10
`D. Defendants Cannot Show Good Cause to Untimely Add Dr. Abraham's New Theoiy ......... 11
`
`E. Dr. Abraham's Disclosure Of New Theo1ies Is Neither Justified Nor Haimless ................... 13
`
`II.
`
`MR. MEYER'S UNTIMEL~ OPINION .................................................... 16
`
`6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`. ............................................................................................................................. 18
`
`C. Mr. Meyer's April 26 Supplemental Rep01t Violates The Comt's Scheduling Order.. ......... 19
`
`D. Defendants Cannot Show Good Cause For Mr. Meyer's New Theoiy .................................. 20
`
`E. Mr. Meyer's New Damages Opinion Is Not Mere "Supplemental Disclosure." .................... 22
`
`F. Mr. Meyer's Late Disclosure Of This New Theo1y Is Neither Justified Nor Haimless ......... 23
`
`CONCLUSION ............................. ............................. ....................................................................... ....... 25
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 593 Filed 05/05/21 Page 3 of 31 PageID# 13608
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Akeva LLC v. Mizuno Corp.,
`212 F.R.D. 306 (M.D.N.C. 2002) ........................................................................................................... 5
`
`Amari v. C.R. England, Inc.,
`2010 WL 2943686 (S.D. Ind. July 21, 2010) ....................................................................................... 10
`
`Aventis Pharms., Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`335 F. Supp. 2d 558 (D.N.J. 2004) ....................................................................................................... 14
`
`Berkheimer v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. 12 C 9023, 2016 WL 3030170 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2016) ........................................................ 10, 22
`
`Calmac Mfg. Corp. v. Dunham-Bush, Inc.,
`929 F. Supp. 951 (E.D. Va. 1996) (Beach Smith, J.) ........................................................................... 14
`
`Cave Consulting Grp., Inc. v. OptumInsight, Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-03424-JCS, 2018 WL 1938555 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2018) ......................................... 13, 21
`
`Cook v. Howard,
`484 F. App’x 805 (4th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................................... 4
`
`Eagle Pharms., Inc. v. Slayback Pharma LLC,
`382 F. Supp. 3d 341 (D. Del. 2019), aff’d, 958 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................ 14
`
`Faulconer v. Centra Health, Inc.,
`808 F. App’x 148 (4th Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................... 5, 11, 13, 20
`
`Forstmann v. Culp,
`114 F.R.D. 83 (M.D.N.C. 1987) ............................................................................................................. 4
`
`Gallagher v. S. Source Packaging, LLC,
`568 F. Supp. 2d 624 (E.D.N.C. 2008) ............................................................................................ 10, 22
`
`Instituform Techs. v. CAT Contracting,
`161 F.3d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................................................. 14
`
`Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. v. Bentley Motors Ltd.,
`No. 18-cv-320, 2020 WL 6817060 (E.D. Va. Nov. 3, 2020)
` ............................................................................................................................................ 11, 14, 15, 24
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 593 Filed 05/05/21 Page 4 of 31 PageID# 13609
`
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................................ 20
`
`Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian,
`535 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`OmniSource Corp. v. Heat Wave Metal Processing, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-772, 2015 WL 3452918, at *9 (E.D.N.C. May 29, 2015) ................................. 11, 21, 23, 24
`
`Prusin v. Canton’s Pearls, LLC,
`No. 16-605, 2017 WL 3492163 (D. Md. Aug. 15, 2017) ..................................................................... 23
`
`Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG,
`145 F. Supp. 2d 721 (E.D. Va. 2001) (Payne, J.) ........................................................................... 13, 15
`
`S. States Rack And Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co.,
`318 F.3d 592 (4th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................................ 5, 23
`
`Sharpe v. United States,
`230 F.R.D. 452 (E.D. Va. 2005) (Friedman, J.) ..................................................................................... 5
`
`Sloan Valve Co. v. Zurn Indus., Inc.,
`2013 WL 3147349, at *4 (N.D. Ill. June 19, 2013) ........................................................................ 10, 23
`
`Tristrata, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 11-cv-03797, 2013 WL 12172909 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2013) ................................................ 15, 24
`
`U.S. ex rel. Skibo v. Greer Laby’ys, Inc., .
` No. 13-cv-110, 2019 WL 1992139 (W.D.N.C. May 6, 2019) ............................................................ 11
`
`United States ex rel. Skibo v. Greer Lab’ys, Inc.,
`No. 5:13-cv-110, 2019 WL 1992139 (W.D.N.C. May 6, 2019) .................................................... 11, 21
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) ................................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) ................................................................................................................................. 4
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) ............................................................................................................................... 15
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) ......................................................................................................................... 5, 10, 23
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) ............................................................................................................................... 17
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) ........................................................................................................................... 5, 13
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 593 Filed 05/05/21 Page 5 of 31 PageID# 13610
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This Court’s Scheduling Order permitted only opening and responsive expert reports.
`
`(Dkt. 461.) It did not permit a third round of rebuttal expert reports. On March 31, 2021, the Court
`
`granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order which permitted the parties a
`
`narrow exception to serve updated expert reports on April 26 to “identify citations to fact testimony
`
`to support already-disclosed opinions,” (Dkts. 534 at 3; 535). While Reynolds is not opposing the
`
`majority of additions Defendants introduced in their seven supplemental expert reports served on
`
`April 26, Defendants abused the provision in two instances by injecting new theories and opinion
`
`testimony into the case that they could (and should) have included in their opening expert reports.
`
`Specifically, on April 26, after the close of fact discovery, Dr. Abraham introduced, for the first
`
`time, a brand new theory of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents even though as of at
`
`least June 2020 Defendants had all the information necessary to offer such an opinion then. On
`
`the same day, Defendants served a supplemental report from Mr. Meyer offering a new damages
`
`opinion, calculating a reasonable royalty rate for the
`
` for the first time
`
`based on documents that Reynolds produced to Defendants last fall.
`
`Defendants have no excuse for these belated disclosures. Their Motion should be denied
`
`under Rule 16’s “good cause” standard for amendment of the Scheduling Order. Their actions
`
`have been anything but diligent. Nonetheless, Defendants attempt to distract from their lack of
`
`diligence in two ways. First, they characterize their experts’ brand new opinions as mere
`
`“supplementation.” Not so. Both Dr. Abraham and Mr. Meyer offered new theories and opinions
`
`that go far beyond merely correcting their previous reports or identifying citations to fact
`
`testimony. Second, even though Defendants concede that Rule 37 has nothing to do with this
`
`dispute, they seek to backfill their lack of diligence by expounding on the factors that would inform
`
`whether to strike their improper and belated disclosures. Indeed, Defendants appear to argue that
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 593 Filed 05/05/21 Page 6 of 31 PageID# 13611
`
`
`they can flout the Court’s Scheduling Order so long as their newly disclosed opinions are
`
`“harmless.” That is not the standard here—good cause is. Accordingly the Court need not reach
`
`Defendants’ arguments under Rule 37, because Defendants have not come close to showing good
`
`cause for injecting new infringement theories and expert opinions into the case after the close of
`
`fact discovery. Defendants’ Motion should be denied.1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Consistent with the amended Scheduling Order, the parties served supplemental expert
`
`reports on April 26 purportedly to “identify citations to fact testimony to support already-disclosed
`
`opinions.” (Dkts. 534 at 3; 535.)
`
`
`
`But Dr. Abraham’s and Mr. Meyer’s supplemental reports do much more than that, a point
`
`Defendants’ counsel acknowledged in correspondence sent contemporaneously with the
`
`Defendants’ service of the supplemental reports. (See Defendants’ Ex. 13 [Apr. 26, 2021,
`
`McNeely Letter to Michalik] at 1.)2 Dr. Abraham offered for the first time an opinion that the
`
`
`1 If the Court grants leave to add Dr. Abraham’s new infringement opinions, then pursuant to the
`Court’s Scheduling Order, Mr. Kodama must be permitted to submit a responsive report to address
`Dr. Abraham’s new opinions, and fact discovery must be reopened on the new infringement theory,
`including the opportunity to conduct additional depositions of at least Mr. Thorens and
`Mr. Cochand, the ’911 patent’s named inventors.
`2 To be clear, Defendants served seven supplemental reports on April 26 containing extensive
`additions that far exceeded the scope of the Court’s Scheduling Order. (Dkt. 461.) The reports,
`for example, contained (i) improper rebuttal opinions, (ii) citations to fact testimony, evidence,
`and documents that were available to Defendants before serving the original reports, and (iii)
`citations to Defendants’ own documents that Defendants could have relied upon in the original
`reports. (Defendants’ Ex. 14 [Apr. 30, 2021, Michalik Email to McNeely] at 3-4.) Even though
`Reynolds’s experts complied with the Scheduling Order and limited their supplements to
`identifying citations to fact testimony to support already-disclosed opinions, Reynolds agreed to
`permit Defendants to supplement beyond the Court’s Order, except for Dr. Abraham’s and
`Mr. Meyer’s new opinions.
`
`One of Defendants’ experts, Ms. Ehrlich, introduced new opinions in her supplemental report that
`are not subject to the present Motion. Unlike Dr. Abraham and Mr. Meyer, Ms. Ehrlich offered
`new opinions based on a document that Reynolds produced after Ms. Ehrlich served her opening
`report. (Ex. A [Apr. 26, 2021, Ehrlich Supp. Report] at ¶¶ 96-97, 102-03, 109-10, 115-17, 124-
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 593 Filed 05/05/21 Page 7 of 31 PageID# 13612
`
`
`accused Alto product infringes the ’911 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. (Defendants’ Ex.
`
`20 [Apr. 26, 2021, Abraham Supp. Report] at ¶ 34) Mr. Meyer offered a new opinion,
`
`
`
`-
`
`for the first time, accompanied by 16
`
`pages of new attachments containing detailed calculations. (Defendants’ Ex. 15 [Apr. 26, 2021,
`
`Meyer Supp. Report] at ¶ 268 n.409; Ex. C [Apr. 26, 2021, Meyer Supp. Report] at Attachments
`
`22-26.)
`
`
`
`Defendants incorrectly suggest that Reynolds delayed the parties’ meet and confer. (Dkt.
`
`584 at 4.) In fact, in their April 26 letter, Defendants acknowledged that leave of the Court was
`
`required for certain paragraphs in the seven supplemental reports they served (including
`
`Dr. Abraham’s and Mr. Meyer’s supplemental reports) but did not identify the basis for each
`
`addition, leaving Reynolds to guess. (See Defendants’ Ex. 13 [Apr. 26, 2021, McNeely Letter to
`
`Michalik] at 1.) On April 27, Reynolds requested that Defendants identify for each addition to
`
`Defendants’ amended and supplemental expert reports their bases for requesting leave to
`
`supplement. (Defendants’ Ex. 14 [Apr. 27, 2021, Michalik Email to McNeely] at 8-9.) Defendants
`
`refused.3 (Id. [McNeely Email to Michalik] at 8.) On April 28, Reynolds again requested that
`
`Defendants identify the specific bases for their proposed supplements. (Id. [Michalik Email to
`
`
`26, 134-34, 143-45, and 153-60.) Reynolds has not objected to Ms. Ehrlich’s new opinions
`because they are based on documents Ms. Ehrlich did not have at the time she submitted her
`opening report. (Defendants’ Ex. 14 [Apr. 30, 2021, Michalik Email to McNeely] at 4.) However,
`Reynolds stated that it “should have the opportunity to submit a responsive opinion” to
`Ms. Ehrlich’s supplemental opening report. (Id.) Defendants so far have refused to agree to permit
`Reynolds’s expert Mr. Clissold to offer a supplemental report responsive to Ms. Ehrlich’s new
`opinions. (Ex. B [Emails Between Michalik and McNeely].)
`3 Defendants also served a “Corrected Amended and Supplemented Opening Report Expert Report
`of Stacy Ehrlich” with an incorrect redline copy on April 27. (Ex. D [Apr. 27, 2021, Smith Email]
`at 2.) Defendants did not serve an accurate redline copy of Ms. Ehrlich’s report until April 28.
`(Id. at 1.) Reynolds promptly reviewed Defendants’ categorization of Ms. Ehrlich’s additions and
`provided its limited objections on April 29 along with its other objections to Defendants’ proposed
`supplementations.
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 593 Filed 05/05/21 Page 8 of 31 PageID# 13613
`
`
`McNeely] at 7.) Finally, on the evening of April 28, Defendants provided the bases. (Id. [McNeely
`
`Email to Michalik] at 6-7.) On April 29, Reynolds objected to a limited number of Defendants’
`
`proposed supplements, including Defendants’ attempt to inject a new theory of infringement and
`
`a new damages opinion into the case in “rebuttal” reports served after the close of fact discovery.
`
`(Id. [Michalik Email to McNeely] at 3-4.)
`
`
`
`The parties met and conferred on April 30. (Defendants’ Ex. 14 [Apr. 30, 2021, Michalik
`
`Email to McNeely] at 1-4.) Reynolds narrowed its objections further to include only the subject
`
`of Defendants’ Motion: Dr. Abraham’s new theory and opinion that the Alto product infringes the
`
`asserted ’911 patent under the doctrine of equivalents and Mr. Meyer’s newly asserted damages
`
`opinion
`
`. Reynolds has not objected to
`
`Defendants’ other extensive additions to their expert reports, detailed at page 6 of Defendants’
`
`Exhibit 14 (Apr. 28, 2021, McNeely Letter to Michalik). Of the dozens of paragraph numbers
`
`identified as containing new material, Reynolds is only objecting to a single paragraph in
`
`Dr. Abraham’s report (¶ 34) and a single footnote in Mr. Meyer’s report, along with his
`
`accompanying calculations (¶ 268, n.409, Attachments 22-26), as these constitute untimely new
`
`opinions for which Defendants lack good cause to supplement.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Where the court has entered a scheduling order, a party must satisfy Rule 16(b)’s good
`
`cause standard to justify leave to amend the scheduling order. Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian,
`
`535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 2008); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Indeed, the scheduling order is “not
`
`a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without
`
`peril.” Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C. 1987). In the Fourth Circuit, good cause
`
`turns on whether “the deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the party’s diligence.” Cook v.
`
`Howard, 484 F. App’x 805, 815 (4th Cir. 2012). The “touchstone of th[e] good cause requirement
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 593 Filed 05/05/21 Page 9 of 31 PageID# 13614
`
`
`is diligence,” and if a party cannot show good cause to amend the scheduling order, its motion
`
`must be denied. Faulconer v. Centra Health, Inc., 808 F. App’x 148, 152 (4th Cir. 2020) (citation
`
`omitted).
`
`“Rule 26(e) envisions supplementation when a party’s discovery disclosures happen to be
`
`defective in some way so that the disclosure was incorrect or incomplete and, therefore,
`
`misleading.” Sharpe v. United States, 230 F.R.D. 452, 462 (E.D. Va. 2005) (Friedman, J.) (quoting
`
`Akeva LLC v. Mizuno Corp., 212 F.R.D. 306, 310 (M.D.N.C. 2002)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
`
`However, the Rule “does not cover failure of omission because the expert did an inadequate or
`
`incomplete preparation.” Id. (quoting Akeva, 212 F.R.D. at 310).
`
`Defendants rely on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) and the five-factor test under
`
`that rule set forth in S. States Rack And Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592, 596
`
`(4th Cir. 2003). But Defendants concede that Rule 37(c)(1) does not apply. (Dkt. 584 at 11).
`
`Defendants are correct that Rule 37(c)(1) is inapplicable to their Motion but they nevertheless try
`
`to use the Southern States test under Rule 37(c)(1) to argue that their untimely opinions are
`
`“harmless” because trial has not been scheduled yet and any prejudice can be cured by additional
`
`discovery. Therefore, Defendants reason, they do not need to meet Rule 16’s good cause standard
`
`and show diligence.
`
`Defendants’ argument cannot be correct. If that were the standard, then Rule 16’s good
`
`cause standard would be a dead letter, and any party wishing to re-do its expert reports could do
`
`so at will, so long as there was sufficient time remaining to re-do discovery before trial. Instead,
`
`Rule 16 governs, and Defendants must meet the “good cause” standard and demonstrate their own
`
`diligence. This Defendants plainly cannot do, and their Motion should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 593 Filed 05/05/21 Page 10 of 31 PageID# 13615
`
`I.
`
`DR. ABRAHAM'S UNTIMELY DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS OPINION
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Defendants exclusively and misleadingly focus on
`
`produced by Reynolds in Febmaiy 2021, even though Defendants indisputably had
`
`possession of both
`
`and
`
`of the Alto
`
`product since at least June and September 2020, respectively.
`
`Defendants filed their counterclaims asse1iing the '911 patent on June 29, 2020. (Dkts. 39,
`
`40.) In their counterclaim allegations, Defendants included
`
`to identify how the Alto allegedly met celiain claims of
`
`Defendants' asserted patents. (See, e.g., Dkt. 40 (PMP's Counterclaims] ml 20-25; Dkt. 39 (ACS
`
`and PM USA' s Counterclaims] ,r,r 20-22
`
`).) In their
`
`original counterclaims,
`
`Defendants did not asseli the
`
`'911 patent againstReynolds's Alto product. (Dkt. 39 (ACS and PM USA's Counterclaims] ,r,r 39-
`
`48.)
`
`Then, dming fact discovery, Reynolds produced documents other than
`
`detailing the stmcture and operation of the Alto product, in addition to providing Defendants with
`
`multiple physical samples of the Alto product. For example, on September 24, 2020, Reynolds
`
`produced
`
`4 On October 26, 2020, Reynolds
`
`produced physical samples of the Alto product as PPHYS026-PPHYS035.5
`
`In its document
`
`4 Attached as Ex. E (RJREDVA_001449196). (See also Ex. F (Sept. 24, 2020, Maiorana
`Production Letter to Grant].)
`5 (Ex. G (Oct. 26, 2020, Maiorana Production Letter to Thomas].)
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 593 Filed 05/05/21 Page 11 of 31 PageID# 13616
`
`production, Reynolds also produced
`
`Michalik Email to Koh] at 1.)
`
`Defendants' Ex. 2 [Nov. 9, 2020,
`
`(See Defendants' Ex. 6
`
`[Feb. 19, 2021, Michalik Email to Koh] at 1.)
`
`Defendants
`
`amended their inte1rngato1y response to add a contention that the Alto product infringes the '911
`
`patent. (Ex. H [Nov. 12, 2020, PMP's Exhibit C to Supp. Resp. to InteIT. No. 8] at 1, 63-64.)
`
`Shortly thereafter, the case was stayed. (Dkt. 426 at 1.)
`
`After the Comt lifted the stay on Defendants' counterclaim patents, including the '911
`
`patent (Dkt. 456 at 1-2), Reynolds learned for the first time
`
`-
`
`on which Defendants' infringement allegations against the Alto product relied, -
`
`. (See Defendants' Ex. 6 [Feb. 19, 2021, Michalik Email to Koh] at 1.) It is not
`
`disputed, though, that the
`
`and physical samples- which
`
`Reynolds produced to Defendants in September and October 2020-do accurately depict the Alto
`
`product. And the Alto's internal features can be asce1tained from the
`
`physical samples of the Alto product
`
`Reynolds promptly info1med Defendants on Febrnaiy 19, 2021,
`
`Reynolds pointed Defendants to
`
`s (Ex. E
`
`[RJREDV A_ 001449196])-in addition to the physical san1ples- "that capture[ d] the strnctural
`
`In the same F ebrnary 19 coITespondence,
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 593 Filed 05/05/21 Page 12 of 31 PageID# 13617
`
`features of the Alto product as sold." (Defendants' Ex. 6 [Feb. 19, 2021, Michalik Email to Koh]
`
`at 1.) Thus, all along, Defendants had physical samples of the accused Alto product in addition to
`
`that indisputably reflected the co1Tect structure of the Alto
`
`product as sold in the United States.
`
`B.
`
`Defendants Waited Until Mter The Close of Fact Discovery To Introduce Dr.
`Abraham's Opinion Of Infringement Under The Doctrine Of Equivalents.
`
`Consistent with its Febmru.y 22 production
`
`, Reynolds
`
`supplemented its non-infringement inte1Togato1y response on Mru.·ch 5. Reynolds explained why
`
`the Alto product does not infringe the '911 patent
`
`. (Defendants' Ex. 8 [Mar.
`
`5, 2021, Reynolds's Supp. Interr. Resp.] at 63-64.) Reynolds contended that the Alto product does
`
`not infringe the '911 product either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. (Id. at 65.)
`
`On Mru.·ch 12, Reynolds requested that Defendants provide their infringement contentions
`
`for the '911 patent based
`
`as produced on Febmary 22. (Ex. I [Mar. 12, 2021 ,
`
`Michalik Letter to Koh] at 1-2.) That sam e day, Defendants amended their inte1Togato1y responses
`
`and, in doing so, also added two new asserted patent claims to the case. (Ex. J [Mar. 12, 2021 ,
`
`PMP's Exhibit C to Supp. Resp. to Interr. No. 8] at 1 (adding '911 patent claims 2 and 12).) And,
`
`later that night, Defendants served a supplemental expert repo1t from Dr. Abraham. (Ex. K [Mar.
`
`12, 2021 , Abraham Supp. Repo1t]; Ex. L [Mru.·. 12, 2021, Koh Email to Michalik] at 6-7.)
`
`Although Dr. Abraham's March 12 repo1t was weeks late according to the Comt' s modified
`
`Scheduling Order (Dkt. 461), the pm.ties confeITed and agreed (as reflected in the parties' Joint
`
`Motion and the Comt's Order at Dkts. 513 and 515) that Reynolds would not oppose
`
`Dr. Abrahan1's supplemental repo1t, and that Mr. Kodama (Reynolds's non-infringement expert)
`
`would be pennitted to rebut Dr. Abraham's new opinions directed to the Alto product and the
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 593 Filed 05/05/21 Page 13 of 31 PageID# 13618
`
`
`asserted ’911 claims. (See Ex. L [Mar. 18, 2021, Koh Email to Michalik] at 2-3; Dkt. 513 at 3.)
`
`In his March 12 supplemental report, Dr. Abraham opined only that the accused Alto
`
`product literally infringes the asserted claims of the ’911 patent. (Ex. K [Mar. 12, 2021, Abraham
`
`Supp. Report] ¶ 4 n.2.) He did not provide any opinion that the Alto product infringes the ’911
`
`patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Dr. Abraham’s March 12 opening report included
`
`
`
`. (Ex. K [Mar. 12, 2021, Abraham Report] at 6-8, 15, 18-19.) He
`
`purported to “reserve the right to supplement this Report with my opinions on why the Alto
`
`infringes under the doctrine of equivalents” “[t]o the extent RJR argues there is no literal
`
`infringement.” (Id.) Dr. Abraham’s purported “reservation” was improper because one week
`
`earlier, on March 5, Reynolds had already served an interrogatory response expressly contending
`
`that the Alto product does not literally infringe the ’911 patent. (Defendants’ Ex. 8 [Mar. 5, 2021,
`
`Reynolds’s Supp. Interr. Resp.] at 63-64.)
`
`
`
`Reynolds then served Mr. Kodama’s rebuttal report on March 31, in which Mr. Kodama
`
`explained his opinion that the Alto product does not literally infringe the ’911 patent. Mr. Kodama
`
`also noted that Dr. Abraham had offered no opinion on infringement under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents. (Ex. M [Mar. 31, 2021, Kodama Report] ¶ 103.) Following Mr. Kodama’s rebuttal
`
`-
`
`report, a Reynolds witness
`
` sat for a deposition on April 14 to address
`
`
`
` Fact discovery then closed on April 19. (See Dkts. 534 at 1; 535.)
`
`
`
`On April 26, the parties’ experts submitted supplemental reports to “identify citations to
`
`fact testimony to support already-disclosed opinions.” (Dkts. 534 at 3; 535.) But Dr. Abraham
`
`went well beyond what the Scheduling Order permitted by supplementing his report to include a
`
`brand new theory of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. (Defendants’ Ex. 20 [Apr.
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 593 Filed 05/05/21 Page 14 of 31 PageID# 13619
`
`
`26, 2021, Abraham Supp. Report] at ¶ 34.) Throughout the fact discovery period, Reynolds had
`
`stressed to Defendants multiple times the importance of timely disclosure of any infringement
`
`contentions under the doctrine of equivalents. (Ex. N [Oct. 27, 2020, Michalik Letter to Koh] at
`
`1 (asking for more than “boilerplate statements” regarding Defendants’ doctrine of equivalents
`
`contentions); Ex. O [Nov. 19, 2020, Michalik Letter to Koh] at 1 (asking again for more than
`
`“boilerplate statements regarding the doctrine of equivalents”).) Yet it was not until after the close
`
`of fact discovery, in his April 26 supplement, that Dr. Abraham opined for the first time that “[t]o
`
`the extent it is determined that the Alto cavities do not literally meet the ‘at least one cavity’
`
`limitation, the Alto meets this limitation under the doctrine of equivalents.” (Defendants’ Ex. 20
`
`[Apr. 26, 2021, Abraham Supp. Report] at ¶ 34.)
`
`Dr. Abraham’s New Theory Goes Far Beyond “Supplemental Disclosure.”
`
`C.
`Having failed to show good cause, and in an attempt to justify their belated disclosure of
`
`this new infringement theory, Defendants characterize Dr. Abraham’s new theories as mere
`
`“supplemental disclosure” under Rule 26. (Dkt. 584 at 6.) Dr. Abraham’s new opinions are not
`
`proper supplementation. “Supplementation of an expert report permits a party to correct
`
`inadvertent errors or omissions.” Gallagher v. S. Source Packaging, LLC, 568 F. Supp. 2d 624,
`
`630 (E.D.N.C. 2008). It does not, however allow an expert to offer “new and different analysis
`
`and opinions . . . than were included in her original report.” Berkheimer v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`
`No. 12 C 9023, 2016 WL 3030170, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2016). See also Amari v. C.R. England,
`
`Inc., 2010 WL 2943686, at *2 (S.D. Ind. July 21, 2010) (Rule 26 “does not give the producing
`
`party a license to . . . offer new opinions under the guise of the ‘supplement’ label.”); Sloan Valve
`
`Co. v. Zurn Indus., Inc., 2013 WL 3147349, at *4 (N.D. Ill. June 19, 2013) (Rule 26(e) “does not
`
`. . . permit an expert to correct mistakes based on information that was available to the expert well
`
`in advance of the issuance of his report.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 593 Filed 05/05/21 Page 15 of 31 PageID# 13620
`
`
`
`Dr. Abraham’s new opinion asserting an entirely new doctrine of equivalents infringement
`
`theory is not remotely in the same ballpark as supplementation to correct an inadvertent error or
`
`omission, and the Court should not permit Defendants’ late disclosure. Indeed, Defendants’ cited
`
`case, OmniSource Corp. v. Heat Wave Metal Processing, Inc. (see Dkt. 584 at 6), makes clear that
`
`Defendants’ behavior, which seeks to “bolster their position . . . by ‘supplementing’ an expert
`
`report with a ‘new and improved’ expert report,” is nothing more than “gamesmanship.” No. 13-
`
`cv-772, 2015 WL 3452918, at *9 (E.D.N.C. May 29, 2015).6
`
`D.
`
`Defendants Cannot Show Good Cause to Untimely Add Dr. Abraham’s New
`Theory.
`
`
`
`Defendants lack good cause to introduce a new theory of infringement—here, infringement
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents—by allowing Dr. Abraham a third bite at the apple. Rule 26
`
`requires that Dr. Abraham’s report include a “complete statement of all opinions” that he would
`
`express and the “basis and reasons for them.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (emphasis added). Because
`
`Dr. Abraham did not opine in his March 12 report that Reynolds’s Alto product infringes the ’911
`
`patent under the doctrine of equivalents, Defendants must satisfy Rule 16’s requirement of good
`
`cause to amend the Scheduling Order to add this new and belated opinion now. The “touchstone
`
`of [Rule 16’s] good cause requirement is diligence,” and if a party cannot show good cause to
`
`amend the scheduling order, its motion must be denied. Faulconer, 808 F. App’x at 152 (citation
`
`omitted). Defendants cannot show that they acted diligently, and therefore cannot show good
`
`cause. See id.
`
`
`
`In an attempt to show diligence, Defendants characterize the
`
` as “new.”
`
`
`6 Unsurprisingly, Defendants’ other cited cases are not on point. U.S. ex rel. Skibo v. Greer
`Laby’ys, Inc. involved new documents, not new opinions. No. 13-cv-110, 2019 WL 1992139
`(W.D.N.C. May 6, 2019). And in Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. v. Bentley, the court concluded that the
`late-disclosed damages theory was not timely. No. 18-cv-320, 2020 WL 6817060 (E.D. Va. Nov.
`3, 2020).
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 593 Filed 05/05/21 Page 16 of 31 PageID# 13621
`
`
`(Dkt. 584 at 10-11.) But there is nothing “new” about
`
`. Reynolds produced
`
`-
`
`it on February 22, well before Dr. Abraham’s March 12 report. Moreover, Defendants
`
` and
`
`
`
`
`
` of the Alto since at least September 24, 2020, from which the Alto’s internal
`
`features can be ascertained. What is more, Defendants had the
`
` and Reynolds’s
`
`corresponding non-infringement contentions, for nearly two months before fact discovery closed,
`
`yet waited until after the close of fact discovery to disclose Dr. Abraham’