Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 690 Filed 06/02/21 Page 1 of 37 PageID# 15846
`
`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.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`
`
`
`BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`BY PLAINTIFFS RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. AND
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 690 Filed 06/02/21 Page 2 of 37 PageID# 15847
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS .................................................................................. 1
`A.
`The ’374 Patent ...................................................................................................... 1
`B.
`The ’911 Patent ...................................................................................................... 4
`C. Willful Infringement ............................................................................................ 10
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD.................................................................................... 12
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 13
`I.
`THE ’374 PATENT IS INVALID AS ANTICIPATED UNDER 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(a)(1) ....................................................................................................................... 13
`DEFENDANTS CANNOT SHOW THAT ANY OF THE VUSE ALTO, SOLO
`G1, VIBE, OR CIRO PRODUCTS INFRINGE THE ’911 PATENT ............................ 18
`A.
`The Solo G1, Vibe, Ciro, And Alto Products Do Not Literally Infringe ............. 18
`1.
`Defendants’ expert does not—and cannot—offer any literal
`infringement opinion regarding the Solo G1, Vibe, and Ciro
`products .................................................................................................... 19
`The Alto product simply has no “cavity” that is a “blind hole,” and
`even if it did, the “largest” cross-sectional dimension is far outside
`the claimed range ..................................................................................... 20
`As A Matter Of Law, Defendants Are Barred From Relying On The
`Doctrine Of Equivalents To Prove Infringement ................................................. 23
`1.
`Prosecution history estoppel and claim vitiation bar Defendants
`from claiming infringement by Solo G1, Vibe, and Ciro under the
`doctrine of equivalents ............................................................................. 23
`Prosecution history estoppel bars Defendants from claiming
`infringement by Alto under the doctrine of equivalents, and
`Dr. Abraham’s equivalence opinion creates no genuine issue of
`fact............................................................................................................ 25
`DEFENDANTS CANNOT SHOW WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ................................................................................................................ 26
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 29
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 690 Filed 06/02/21 Page 3 of 37 PageID# 15848
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc.,
`725 F.2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1984)..........................................................................................13, 14
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Coherus Biosciences Inc.,
`931 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................18
`
`Applied Material, Inc. v. Tokyo Seimitsu, Co.,
`446 F. Supp. 2d 538 (E.D. Va. 2006) ......................................................................................12
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) ................................................................................14
`
`Augustine Med., Inc. v. Gaymar Indus., Inc.,
`181 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................15
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................20
`
`Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.,
`989 F.3d 964 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..................................................................................................28
`
`Biedermann Techs. GmbH & Co. KG v. K2M, Inc.,
`No. 2:18-cv-585, 2021 WL 1143767 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2021) (Davis, C.J.) ........................27
`
`Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 1:18-CV-760, 2019 WL 8107921 (E.D. Va. Feb. 26, 2019) ......................................28, 29
`
`Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.,
`519 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................22
`
`Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.,
`569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................20
`
`Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp.,
`508 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................19
`
`Felix v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`562 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 690 Filed 06/02/21 Page 4 of 37 PageID# 15849
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.,
`535 U.S. 722 (2002) ...........................................................................................................23, 24
`
`Finnigan Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`180 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................18
`
`Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. v. Impax Labs., Inc.,
`356 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................18
`
`Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.,
`339 U.S. 605 (1950) .................................................................................................................26
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) .......................................................................................................26, 29
`
`Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.,
`370 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................24
`
`Johnson & Johnson Assocs. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co.,
`285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................24
`
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................18
`
`Key Mfg. Group, Inc. v. Microdot, Inc.,
`925 F.2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1991)................................................................................................18
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................14
`
`Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.,
`851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................27
`
`Moore USA, Inc. v. Standard Register Co.,
`229 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................24
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc, v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................20
`
`Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Huntsman Polymers Corp.,
`157 F.3d 866 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................26
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 690 Filed 06/02/21 Page 5 of 37 PageID# 15850
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Page
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharms. Inc.,
`438 F.3d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................22
`
`Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`414 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................23
`
`Sanofi v. Watson Labs. Inc.,
`875 F.3d 636 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................20
`
`Searfoss v. Pioneer Consol Corp.,
`374 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................24
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................27
`
`Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc.,
`508 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................26
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................13, 14, 17
`
`TechSearch, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp.,
`286 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................18
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe, Inc.,
`No. 1:10-cv-115, 2019 WL 1233882 (E.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2019) (O’Grady, J.) ...........26, 27, 28
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`326 F. Supp. 3d 105 (E.D. Va. 2018) (O’Grady, J.) ................................................................12
`
`Teva Pharm. Indus. Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharms. LP,
`661 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................13
`
`Texas Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp.,
`90 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................26
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed Cir. 1998).................................................................................................24
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 690 Filed 06/02/21 Page 6 of 37 PageID# 15851
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Upsher-Smith Labs., Inc. v. Pamlab, LLC,
`412 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................13
`
`Vanmoor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`201 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................13
`
`Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton-Davis Chem. Co.,
`520 U.S. 17 (1997) ...................................................................................................................18
`
`WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................18
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ....................................................................................................................2, 13, 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ..........................................................................................................................5, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ..................................................................................................................10, 11, 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 298 ..............................................................................................................................27
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ......................................................................................................................19
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 690 Filed 06/02/21 Page 7 of 37 PageID# 15852
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively,
`Plaintiffs) brought this action against Altria Client Services LLC (Altria), Philip Morris USA, Inc.
`(PM USA), and Philip Morris Products S.A. (PMP) (collectively, Defendants) on April 9, 2020,
`alleging that Defendants’ IQOS heat-not-burn tobacco system infringed six patents held by Plain-
`tiffs. Defendants brought counterclaims alleging, among other things, that Plaintiffs’ VUSE e-
`cigarette products infringed five patents held by Defendants and that the infringement was willful,
`such that Defendants are entitled to enhanced damages. As to two of those patents and the claim
`to enhanced damages, there is no genuine dispute of material fact and thus summary judgment
`should be granted on those counterclaims in favor of Plaintiffs.
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`A. THE ’374 PATENT
`1.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,420,374 (the ’374 Patent) is directed to an improved puff sensor
`assembly of an electronic vaping device. Ex. A (’374 Patent). It was filed on July 7, 2015, and
`issued on September 24, 2019. Ex. A cover page.
`2.
`RJRV markets and sells electronic nicotine delivery systems under the brand names
`VUSE Solo, VUSE Ciro, VUSE Vibe, and VUSE Alto. Doc. 276 (Pltfs.’ Am. Answer to Coun-
`tercl.) ¶ 3 (Oct. 30, 2020).
`3.
`Altria and PM USA allege that VUSE Solo, Ciro, Vibe, and Alto and the associated
`Flavor Packs infringe claims 1-10 and 16-25 (the asserted claims) of the ’374 Patent. Doc. 193
`(Defs.’ Am. Partial Answer to the Am. Compl. & Am. Countercls.) ¶¶ 31-50; Ex. B. (McAlexander
`Second Supp. Opening Expert Rep.) ¶ 299.
`4.
`VUSE Solo was first sold by Reynolds in the United States in March 2013, more
`than one year before the filing of the ’374 Patent. Doc. 655 (Joint Stipulation of Uncontroverted
`Facts) ¶ 10. Since it first went on the market to the present day, each VUSE Solo has contained
` puff sensors:
`. Ex. B
`(McAlexander Second Supp. Opening Expert Rept.) ¶ 326; Ex. C (
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 690 Filed 06/02/21 Page 8 of 37 PageID# 15853
`
`
`
`). Altria and PM USA allege that both puff sensors infringe the ’374
`Patent. See Ex. B ¶¶ 327, 394. Reynolds therefore contends that VUSE Solo renders the asserted
`claims invalid for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`5.
`As Altria and PM USA’s expert acknowledges, the puff sensors in the other accused
`products “share a substantially identical structure and operate in materially the same way” as the
`puff sensors in the VUSE Solo. Ex. B ¶ 120; see also id. ¶¶ 300-311.
`6.
`Altria and PM USA contend that the asserted claims of the ’374 Patent are entitled
`to a priority date of June 29, 2010, which is the date that the ’374 Patent’s parent application,
`PCT/IB2010/052949 (“the ’949 PCT Application”) was filed. Ex. D (’949 PCT Application);
`Ex. E (McAlexander Second Supp. Rebuttal Expert Rep.) ¶¶ 578-95.
`7.
`The ’374 Patent is a continuation-in-part of the ’949 PCT Application. Ex. A, cover
`page. The specification of the ’374 Patent contains a substantial amount of new matter. Compare
`Ex. A (’374 Patent) with Ex. D (’949 PCT Application). In fact, there “is more new material in
`the specification of the ’374 Patent than there is original material from the ’949 PCT Application.”
`Ex. F (Blalock Opening Expert Rep.) ¶ 60.
`8.
`For example, the ’374 Patent includes new text describing the conductive mem-
`brane of the puff sensor as “flexible and resilient.” Ex. A at 3:24, 3:26, 3:32, 3:34-36, 3:40, 5:25,
`5:30, 5:35-36, 7:46. The specification describes “a flexible and conductive membrane which is
`under lateral or radial tension and spans across a central aperture defined by the ring spacer 23
`under radial tensions.” Id. at 3:23-26. The ’374 Patent consistently describes the conductive mem-
`brane as “flexible.” Id. at 3:24, 3:26, 3:32, 3:34-36, 3:40, 5:25, 5:30, 5:35-36, 7:46.
`9.
`The specification of the ’374 Patent further states that, “[i]n some embodiments,
`the first conductive plate member 21 is a flexible and resilient conductive membrane made of
`metal, carbonised or metalized rubber, carbon or metal coated rubber, carbonised or metalized soft
`and resilient plastic materials such as a PPS (Polyphenylene Sulfide), or carbon or metal coated
`soft and resilient plastic materials.” Id. at 5:24-29.
`10.
`The ’949 PCT Application never described the conductive membrane as “flexible.”
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 690 Filed 06/02/21 Page 9 of 37 PageID# 15854
`
`
`
`Compare Ex. D (’949 PCT Application) with Ex. A (’374 Patent) at 3:24, 3:26, 3:32, 3:34-36,
`3:40, 5:25, 5:30, 5:35-36, 7:46. Instead, the ’949 PCT Application described the conductive mem-
`brane as being “a rigid or semi-rigid conductive membrane (121), such as a metallic sheet.” Ex. D.
`at 6:18-19 (emphasis added). In subsequent passages, the ’949 PCT Application referred to the
`membrane as a “resilient metallic membrane,” “metallic membrane,” or “resilient membrane,”
`using those terms interchangeably. See, e.g., Ex. D at 8:1, 8:2, 8:6, 8:7, 8:10, 8:12-13.
`11.
`The ’949 PCT Application also did not describe the conductive membrane as being
`made from “carbonised or metalized rubber, carbon or metal coated rubber, carbonized or metal-
`ized soft and resilient plastic materials such as a PPS (Polyphenylene Sulfide), or carbon or metal
`coated soft and resilient plastic materials.” Compare Ex. D (’949 PCT Application) with Ex. A
`(’374 Patent) at 5:24-29. The “only material disclosed for the conductive membrane in the ’949
`PCT Application is metal or ‘a metallic sheet.’” Ex. F (Blalock Opening Expert Rep.) ¶ 292.
`12.
`In short, the specification of the ’374 Patent changed the description of the mem-
`brane (1) from “rigid or semi-rigid” to “flexible” and (2) from made of a “metallic sheet” to made
`of “soft … plastic,” such as a PPS. Compare Ex. D (’949 PCT Application) at 6:18-19 with Ex. A
`(’374 Patent) at 5:24-29.
`13.
`Dr. Travis Blalock, an electrical engineer and Associate Professor in the Depart-
`ment of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Virginia, explained that a PPS
`membrane “can in no way be construed as rigid or semi-rigid.” Ex. F (Blalock Opening Expert
`Rep.) ¶ 293. Rather, it “is extremely thin and flexible.” Id. “It is soft, easily deformed, and flexes
`a great deal with very little pressure from a probe.” Id.
`14.
`Each of the asserted claims recites, in relevant part, a “capacitor consisting essen-
`tially of a flexible conductive membrane and a rigid conductive plate spaced apart by an insulating
`ring spacer between the flexible conductive membrane and the rigid conductive plate, and an air
`dielectric between the flexible conductive membrane and the rigid conductive plate.” Ex. A (’374
`Patent) at 12:65-13:5, 14:1-7, 14:52-58 (emphasis added). The Court declined to issue any claim
`construction for this term. Doc. 360 (Claim Construction Order).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 690 Filed 06/02/21 Page 10 of 37 PageID# 15855
`
`
`
`15.
`Altria and PM USA rely on the new matter in the ’374 Patent to accuse the VUSE
` of infringing the asserted claims. See Doc. 193 (Altria &
`products,
`PM USA’s Am. Partial Answer to the Am. Compl. & Am. Countercls.) ¶¶ 31-50; Ex. B (McAlex-
`ander Second Supp. Opening Expert Rep.) ¶¶ 364-69.
`16.
`Based on review of the ’374 Patent, Dr. Blalock concluded that the asserted claims
`of the ’374 Patent are not entitled to the priority date of the ’949 PCT Application because, among
`other things, “the amendments to the specification of the ’374 Patent had the effect of broadening
`the scope of the asserted claims” beyond the invention disclosed in the ’949 PCT Application.
`Ex. F (Blalock Opening Expert Rep.) ¶ 295. Accordingly, Dr. Blalock concluded that the VUSE
`Solo anticipates the asserted claims of the ’374 Patent unless it does not infringe them. Id. ¶¶ 300-
`301.
`
`B. THE ’911 PATENT
`17.
`PMP alleges that the VUSE Ciro and Vibe products infringe claims 1, 9-11, and 13
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,104,911 (“the ’911 Patent”), that the VUSE Solo G1 and G2 products in-
`fringe claims 1, 10-11, and 13 of the ’911 Patent, and that the VUSE Alto product infringes claims
`1, 2, and 9-12 of the ’911 Patent. Ex. G (Abraham Second Am. & Supp. Opening Expert Rep.)
`¶ 54; Ex. H (Abraham Am. & Supp. Expert Rep.) ¶¶ 4–70; Ex. I (’911 Patent).
`18.
`The ’911 Patent includes only a single independent claim—claim 1. See Ex. I at
`18:22-30 (emphasis added).
`19.
`During the prosecution of the application that led to the issuance of the ’911 Patent,
`the Examiner rejected the pending claims multiple times as unpatentable in view of prior art. On
`multiple occasions, PMP amended the final “wherein” clause of pending independent claim 13,
`which eventually issued as independent claim 1. Those amendments are collectively shown here:
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 690 Filed 06/02/21 Page 11 of 37 PageID# 15856
`
`
`
`See generally Ex. J (selected excerpts from ’911 Patent file history) (emphases reflecting amend-
`ments from Jan. 6, 2016; July 29, 2016; Oct. 6, 2016; and May 10, 2018).
`20.
`The original claim recited that “the leakage prevention means comprises at least
`one cavity” that “has a cross-sectional dimension x, where x is preferably 0.5 mm or 1 mm or
`between 0.5 mm and 1 mm.” Ex. J at DEF_PUB_EDVA000015581 (May 29, 2013 Preliminary
`Amendment at Claim 13) (emphasis added).
`21.
`On October 6, 2015, the Examiner rejected this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as
`being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. The
`Examiner stated, “the phrase ‘preferably’ renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether
`the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.” Ex. J at
`DEF_PUB_EDVA000015837 (Oct. 6, 2015 Non-Final Rejection at 3).
`22.
`On January 6, 2016, PMP amended the claim, in relevant part, by deleting “prefer-
`ably” and adding the requirement that the “dimension x” is “taken along a cross-section of the
`cavity.” Ex. J at DEF_PUB_EDVA000015966 (Jan. 6, 2016 Amendment at 2).
`23.
`On May 6, 2016, the Examiner again rejected the pending independent claim (along
`with several dependent claims) as being unpatentable over Taieb (U.S. Publ’n No. 2010/0200008)
`in view of Rose et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,935,975) (“Rose”), stating: “Applicant has not shown that
`a cavity having a cross-section measuring .5 mm, 1 mm, or between 0.5 mm and 1 mm is critical.”
`Ex. J at DEF_PUB_EDVA000016066–69 (May 6, 2016 Final Rejection at 2-5).
`24.
`On July 29, 2016, PMP submitted an After Final Consideration Program Request,
`proposing to amend the pending independent claim to require that “at least one cavity is a blind
`hole in the wall of the aerosol-forming chamber,” and also disagreeing with the Examiner’s com-
`ments that “[a]pplicant has not shown that a cavity having a cross-section measuring .5 mm, 1 mm,
`or between 0.5 mm and 1 mm is critical.” Ex. J at DEF_PUB_EDVA000016091,
`DEF_PUB_EDVA000016099 (July 29, 2016 Amendment at 2, 10).
`25.
`PMP also made the following arguments regarding the prior art Rose reference:
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 690 Filed 06/02/21 Page 12 of 37 PageID# 15857
`
`
`
`But Rose’s fingers 62 are narrow protrusions that do not each extend around the inner
`surface of the tube 58. So, fingers 62 do not form a part of a wall of an aerosol-forming
`chamber, and spaces 64 behind fingers 62 do not form a cavity as claimed. However, even
`if the inner surface of tube 58 and fingers 62 could be considered a ‘wall,’ Rose still does
`not provide any teaching or suggestion of the claimed ‘at least one cavity’ being ‘a blind
`hole in the wall of the aerosol-forming chamber.’ Rather, the spaces behind each finger 64
`in Rose are open around the sides of each finger—meaning that such features are non-blind.
`This is the opposite of what is claimed.
`Id. at DEF_PUB_EDVA000016098 (July 29, 2016 Amendment at 9) (emphases in original).
`26.
`On October 6, 2016, PMP amended the pending independent claim to require that
`“at least one cavity is a blind hole recessed in the wall of the aerosol-forming chamber.” Ex. J
`at DEF_PUB_EDVA000016118 (Oct. 6, 2016 Amendment at 2).
`27.
`PMP also repeated and made further arguments regarding the prior art Rose refer-
`ence in the October 6, 2016 Amendment:
`
`
`Applicant’s representative explained that Rose’s fingers 62, whether they are inwardly ex-
`tending filaments (col. 13, l. 38), or slots, or bristles as if of an inverted pipe cleaner, would
`still remain “open” around their sides/ends and hence be non-blind. Applicant’s repre-
`sentative explained how this is the opposite of what is claimed.
`***
`But Rose’s fingers 62 (plural) are narrow protrusions that do not each extend around the
`inner surface of the tube 58. So, fingers 62 do not form a part of a wall of an aerosol-
`forming chamber, and spaces 64 behind fingers 62 do not form a cavity as claimed. Rose’s
`fingers (plural) are also not a recessed blind hole, as claimed. That is, even if the inner
`surface of tube 58 and fingers 62 could be considered a ‘wall,’ Rose still does not provide
`any teaching or suggestion of the claimed ‘at least one cavity’ being ‘a blind hole recessed
`in the wall of the aerosol-forming chamber.’ Rather, the spaces behind each finger 64 in
`Rose are open around the sides of each finger—meaning that such features are non-blind.
`And, as already noted above, such features are not recessed in the wall. This is the opposite
`of what is claimed.
`Ex. J at DEF_PUB_EDVA000016122, DEF_PUB_EDVA000016129 (Oct. 6, 2016 Amendment
`at 6, 13) (emphases in original).
`28.
`On May 19, 2017, the Examiner rejected the pending independent claim (along with
`several other dependent claims) as being unpatentable over Thorens et al. (U.S. Publ’n No.
`2009/0272379) (“Thorens ’379”) in view of Miller (U.S. Patent No. 4,275,747). Ex. J at
`DEF_PUB_EDVA000016143–45 (May 19, 2017 Non-Final Rejection at 4-6).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 690 Filed 06/02/21 Page 13 of 37 PageID# 15858
`
`
`
`29.
`On September 19, 2017, PMP filed a Request for Reconsideration, disagreeing with
`the Examiner and arguing that the dimensions of the cavity in the Miller prior art reference were
`“an order of magnitude greater than Applicant’s claimed dimensions” of 0.5 mm to 1 mm:
`
`Applicant’s disclosure explains exemplary advantages of the claimed “at least one cavity
`[being] a blind hole recessed in the wall of the aerosol forming chamber [having] a cross-
`sectional dimension x taken along a cross-section of the cavity, where x is 0.5 mm, or 1
`mm, or between 0.5 mm and 1 mm,” as recited in independent claim 13. By providing at
`least one cavity in the form of a blind hold recessed in the wall of the aerosol-forming
`chamber with the claimed dimensions for the cavity, aerosol condensate may be retained
`in the cavity by capillary action, even if the aerosol generating system is inverted, rotated,
`or vertically aligned. … In contrast, Miller does not provide any indication or suggestion
`of such dimensions … For example, as can be seen from Miller’s drawings, the lower ex-
`tension 22 is significantly wider and higher than the smoke conducting passage 18 from
`the bowl 12. Miller describes the diameter of the smoke conducting passage 18 as “be-
`tween 3 and 5 mm.” See Miller, col. 3, ll. 42-43. Thus, Miller implicitly discloses that the
`lower extension 22 has a cross-sectional dimension of significantly more than “between 3
`and 5 mm.” For example, in Miller’s Fig. 1, lower extension 22 appears to have a height
`of approximately twice that of the passage 18. This would be the height of lower extension
`22 at around 6 mm to 10 mm. This is an order of magnitude greater than Applicant’s
`claimed dimensions.
`Ex. J at DEF_PUB_EDVA000016171–73 (Sept. 19, 2017 Applicant Request for Reconsideration
`and Remarks at 7-9).
`30.
`On January 10, 2018, the Examiner issued an Office Action, once again rejecting
`the pending independent claim as unpatentable over Thorens ’379 in view of Miller. Ex. J at
`DEF_PUB_EDVA000016186–88 (Jan. 10, 2018 Final Rejection at 3-5). The Examiner stated:
`[T]he modified device of Thorens [in view of Miller] does not explicitly disclose the cavity
`having a cross-sectional dimension x, where x is between 0.5 mm and 1 mm[,] [but] [a]t
`the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
`art to modify the cavity in the modified device of Thorens because Applicant has not dis-
`closed that cavity provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated
`problem.
`Ex. I at DEF_PUB_EDVA000016187 (Jan. 10, 2018 Final Rejection at 4).
`31.
`The Examiner summarized an April 12, 2018 Applicant interview concerning the
`patentability rejections based on Thorens ’379 and Miller, stating: “Discussed adding ‘largest’
`before cross-sectional dimension x that would better clarify the limitation ‘dimension x.’” Ex. J
`at DEF_PUB_EDVA000016296 (Apr. 19, 2018 Applicant Initiated Interview Summary).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 690 Filed 06/02/21 Page 14 of 37 PageID# 15859
`
`
`
`32.
`On May 10, 2018, PMP further amended the pending independent claim to require
`a “largest cross-sectional dimension x”; PMP amended the claim to require: “at least one cavity is
`a blind hole recessed in the wall of the aerosol-forming chamber and has an open end, a closed
`end, and a longitudinal direction extending between the open end and the closed end, and wherein
`the at least one cavity has a largest cross-sectional dimension x taken along a cross-section of the
`cavity in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the cavity, where x is 0.5 mm,
`or 1 mm, or between 0.5 mm and 1 mm.” Ex. J at DEF_PUB_EDVA000016304 (May 10, 2018
`Amendment at 2).
`33.
`In the May 10, 2018 Amendment, PMP also repeated and made further arguments
`regarding the dimensions of the prior art Miller cavity, again stressing that the size of Miller’s
`cavity was “an order of magnitude greater” than the now-claimed “largest cross-sectional dimen-
`sion” between 0.5 mm and 1 mm:
`
`
`[T]he recitation of the “largest cross-sectional dimension” strengthens the arguments of
`record regarding the notable difference in size of Miller’s trap 22, as well as the arguments
`flowing therefrom regarding lack of motivation to combine, no reasonable expectation of
`success, and changing the principle of operation of the reference. … As can be seen from
`Miller’s drawings, the lower extension 22 is significantly wider and higher than the smoke
`conducting passage 18 from the bowl 12. Miller describes the diameter of the smoke con-
`ducting passage 18 as “between 3 and 5 mm.” See Miller, col. 3, ll. 42-43. Thus, Miller
`implicitly discloses that the lower extension 22 has a cross-sectional dimension of signifi-
`cantly more than “between 3 and 5 mm.” For example, in Miller’s Fig. 1, lower extension
`22 appears to have a height of approximately twice that of the passage 18. This would be
`the height of lower extension 22 at around 6 mm to 10 mm. This is an order of magnitude
`greater than Applicant’s claimed dimensions.
`Ex. I at DEF_PUB_EDVA000016313–15 (May 10, 2018 Amendment at 11-13) (emphasis in
`original).
`34.
`PMP further argued in the May 10, 2018 Amendment that a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would not have modified Miller to have a “largest cross-sectional dimension of ‘0.5 mm,
`or 1 mm, or between 0.5 mm to 1 mm” because “such a small cavity” with the claimed numerical
`dimensions would “frustrate the entire purpose” of Miller:
`Even if the person of ordinary skill had considered reducing the dimensions of Miller’s
`lower extension