Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 1 of 39 PageID# 16740
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 1 of 39 Page|D# 16740
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, H‘IC. AND R.J.
`REYNOLDS VAPOR COIVIPANY
`
`Plaintiffs—Counterclaim
`
`Defendants,
`
`V.
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`
`
` ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`
`MORRIS USA INC .; PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTS S.A.
`
`Defendants-Counterclaim
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGNIENT
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 2 of 39 PageID# 16741
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`CONTENTS
`
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INEQUITABLE CONDUCT .................................................1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS ........................................................................2
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 6,803,545 ...............................................................2
`RJR’s Inequitable Conduct Allegations ...................................................................3
`RJR’s Allegations and Expert Opinions Regarding The Prior Art At Issue ............5
`1.
`Allegations Regarding Brooks .....................................................................5
`2.
`Allegations Regarding McCafferty ..............................................................6
`3.
`Allegations Regarding Fleischhauer ............................................................7
`RJR Abandoned Its Inequitable Conduct Defense...................................................9
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................9
`
`ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................10
`
`A.
`B.
`
`RJR Abandoned Its Meritless Inequitable Conduct Defense .................................10
`Summary Judgment Of No Inequitable Conduct Is Warranted On The
`Merits .....................................................................................................................11
`1.
`Brooks and McCafferty Are Not But For Material ....................................11
`2.
`RJR Cannot Show That Specific Intent To Deceive Is The Single
`Most Reasonable Inference ........................................................................13
`As A Corporate Entity, Philip Morris Incorporated Cannot Commit
`Inequitable Conduct ...................................................................................17
`
`3.
`
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY .....................................................18
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................18
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS ......................................................................19
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................21
`A.
`Liu Is Not Prior Art Under § 102(a) Because It Is Not “By
`Another” .....................................................................................................21
`Liu Is Not Prior Art Under Any Other Provision of 35 U.S.C. §
`102..............................................................................................................23
`
`B.
`
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON RJR’S FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH AND ELEVENTH
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ............................................................................................26
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................26
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 3 of 39 PageID# 16742
`
`
`
`II.
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS ..........................................................27
`ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................29
`A.
`Standard for Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses ......................29
`B.
`RJR Has Abandoned Or Pointed To No Facts To Support Their
`Affirmative Defenses .................................................................................29
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................30
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 4 of 39 PageID# 16743
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic Vascular, Inc.,
`485 F. Supp. 2d 538 (D. Del. 2007) .......................................................................................... 12
`
`Advanced Tech. Incubator, Inc. v. Sharp Corp.,
`No. 2:07-CV-468, 2009 WL 4670435 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 4, 2009) ............................................. 30
`
`Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Laser Peripherals, LLC,
`712 F. Supp. 2d 885 (D. Minn. 2010) ................................................................................. 14, 16
`
`Avid Sys., Inc. v. Crystal Import Corp.,
`603 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... 2, 17
`
`Bayer AG v. Schein Pharm., Inc.,
`301 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................... 18, 24, 25
`
`Brucker v. Taylor,
`No. 1:16-cv-1414-GBL, 2017 WL 11506332 (E.D. Va. Sept. 1, 2017) ............................. 29, 30
`
`CertusView Techs., LLC v. S&N Locating Servs., LLC,
`198 F. Supp. 3d 568 (E.D. Va. 2016) ........................................................................................ 11
`
`Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Ott,
`984 F. Supp. 2d 508 (E.D. Va. 2013) .................................................................................. 29, 30
`
`E.W. v. Dolgos,
`884 F.3d 172 (4th Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................. 9, 11
`
`IBM v. Priceline Grp. Inc.,
`271 F. Supp. 3d 667 (D. Del. 2017) .......................................................................................... 30
`
`In re Kathawala,
`9 F.3d 942 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ........................................................................................... 19, 24, 25
`
`In re Katz,
`687 F.3d 450 (CCPA 1982) ................................................................................................. 22, 23
`
`Larson Mfg. Co. of S.D., Inc. v. Aluminart Prods. Ltd.,
`559 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................... 11, 12
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 5 of 39 PageID# 16744
`
`
`
`Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
`79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................... 21
`
`McKesson Automation, Inc. v. Swisslog Italia S.P.A.,
`712 F. Supp. 2d 283 (D. Del. May 18, 2010) ............................................................................ 17
`
`MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Rexam PLC,
`809 F. Supp. 2d 463 (E.D. Va. 2011),
`vacated-in-part on other grounds, 731 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................... 10, 14
`
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC,
`813 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................... 9, 10, 13
`
`Prowess, Inc. v. RaySearch Labs., AB,
`953 F. Supp. 2d 638 (D. Md. 2013) ............................................................................... 14, 15, 16
`
`South Corp. v. United States,
`690 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1982) ................................................................................................. 22
`
`TecSec Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`326 F. Supp. 3d 105 (E.D. Va. 2018) .................................................................................. 11, 29
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................................... passim
`
`Trebro Mfg., Inc. v. Firefly Equip., LLC,
`748 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................... 22, 23
`
`Va. Innovation Scis. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`11 F. Supp. 3d 622 (E.D. Va. 2014) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ........................................................................................................................ 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ........................................................................................................................ 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(d) ........................................................................................................................ 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ........................................................................................................................ 23
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`MPEP § 2135 .................................................................................................................... 19, 24, 25
`
`RULES
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b) ..................................................................................................................... 23
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 6 of 39 PageID# 16745
`
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ....................................................................................................................... 9
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 7 of 39 PageID# 16746
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`’268 Patent
`’374 Patent
`’545 Patent
`’639 Application
`Altria
`Brooks
`Counts
`Fleischhauer
`Higgins
`
`IDS
`McCafferty
`PMP/Altria
`
`PTO
`Ripley
`RJR
`
`Skiff
`Trousdell
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,814,268
`U.S. Patent No. 10,420,374
`U.S. Patent No. 6,803,545
`U.S. Patent Application 10/161,639
`Refers collectively to ALCS and PMUSA
`U.S. Patent No. 4,974,874
`U.S. Patent No. 5,060,671
`U.S. Patent No. 6,040,560
`’545 Patent named inventor Charles T.
`Higgins
`Information Disclosure Statement
`U.S. Patent No. 5,372,148
`Refers collectively to Philip Morris Products
`S.A. (“PMP”), Altria Client Services LLC,
`(“ALCS”) and Philip Morris USA Inc.
`(“PMUSA”)
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`’545 Patent named inventor Bob Ripley
`Refers collectively to RAI Strategic Holdings,
`Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`Peter K. Skiff
`William O. Trousdell
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 8 of 39 PageID# 16747
`
`
`
`PMP/Altria respectfully move for summary judgment on three issues: (1) summary
`
`judgment of no inequitable conduct; (2) partial summary judgment of no invalidity; and (3)
`
`summary judgment of no Equitable Defenses (Fifth Affirmative Defense), no Limitation of
`
`Damages (Sixth Affirmative Defense), no Ensnarement (Eighth Affirmative Defense), and no
`
`Extraterritorial Claims (Eleventh Affirmative Defense).
`
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Shortly after PMP/Altria pled a 95-paragraph inequitable conduct defense that included
`
`detailed allegations and citations to RJR’s sworn inventor testimony (Dkts. 193, 198), RJR pled a
`
`conclusory inequitable conduct claim against the ’545 Patent (Dkt. 274). Although the Court
`
`granted RJR leave to add its defense, RJR has failed to develop a record that raises any genuine
`
`disputes of material fact. There are none. Summary judgment of no inequitable conduct against
`
`RJR is proper for four reasons.
`
`First, the day before the Court’s summary judgment deadline, RJR confirmed that “it will
`
`not pursue a claim of inequitable conduct on the ’545 patent.” Ex. 1. With RJR’s acknowledgment
`
`that its inequitable conduct has no support, RJR cannot proceed further.
`
`Second, the two references that RJR alleges were deliberately withheld from the PTO,
`
`Brooks and McCafferty, are not “but for material” to the patentability of claim 1 of the ’545 Patent,
`
`the only claim that RJR alleges would not have issued. RJR’s allegations omit a dispositive fact:
`
`the Applicants undisputedly disclosed Altria’s own Fleischhauer to the PTO, which undisputedly
`
`discusses not just Brooks and McCafferty in its specification, but also the very power controllers
`
`on which RJR relies to allege materiality. Moreover, RJR’s own invalidity expert for the ’545
`
`patent, Dr. Blalock, opines that Fleischhauer purportedly anticipates claim 1, while Brooks and
`
`McCafferty – at most – would render it obvious. Thus, under RJR’s own expert’s opinion and
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 9 of 39 PageID# 16748
`
`
`
`invalidity theories, Brooks and McCafferty are cumulative of Fleischhauer.
`
`Third, RJR cannot show that the single most reasonable inference to be drawn from the
`
`facts is that the accused inventors committed knowing and intentional fraud on the PTO. RJR
`
`cannot establish that the accused inventors knew of Brooks or McCafferty during prosecution of
`
`the ’545 Patent. Moreover, there is no evidence that the accused inventors knew of Brooks’ and
`
`McCafferty’s purported materiality. Nor is there any evidence that they made a deliberate decision
`
`to withhold Brooks and McCafferty from the PTO. To the contrary, the Applicants disclosed
`
`Fleischhauer, which discusses Brooks and McCafferty in detail.
`
`Fourth, RJR’s allegation that Philip Morris Incorporated committed inequitable conduct
`
`is wrong as a matter of law. As the Federal Circuit has stated: “only individuals, rather than
`
`corporations . . . , owe a duty of candor to the PTO.” Avid Sys., Inc. v. Crystal Import Corp., 603
`
`F.3d 967, 974 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2010).1
`
`RJR has failed to raise any triable issues. The Court should grant summary judgment of
`
`no inequitable conduct.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`A.
`
`Prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 6,803,545
`
`1. The ’545 Patent issued on October 12, 2004 from the ’639 Application. Ex. 2 (’545
`
`Patent).
`
`2. The ’639 Application was filed on June 5, 2002. Ex. 2 (’545 Patent).
`
`3. Trousdell and Skiff of the law firm Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis, L.L.P.
`
`prosecuted the ’639 Application. Ex. 3 at 6-7 (’545 Patent File History).
`
`4. On September 16, 2002, during prosecution of the ’639 Application, Skiff filed an
`
`
`1 All emphases added unless noted otherwise.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 10 of 39 PageID# 16749
`
`
`
`IDS to the PTO. This IDS identified Fleischhauer. See Ex. 3 at 103-06 (’545 Patent File History).
`
`5. In its BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION, Fleischhauer expressly refers to
`
`McCafferty and Brooks, including their controllers that control the flow of power from the power
`
`source to the heating element. Ex. 4 at 1:57-2:31 (Fleischhauer).
`
`6. On March 5, 2004, the Examiner acknowledged that he considered the references
`
`listed in Skiff’s first two IDS forms, including Fleischhauer. Ex. 3 at 141-44 (’545 Patent File
`
`History).
`
`7. During prosecution, the PTO did not reject any pending claim in the ’639
`
`Application. Ex. 3 at 138-44 (’545 Patent File History).
`
`8. On March 8, 2004, the PTO issued a Notice of Allowance for the ’639 Application.
`
`Ex. 3 at 138-44 (’545 Patent File History).
`
`9. The ’639 Application issued as the ’545 Patent on October 12, 2004. Ex. 2 (’545
`
`Patent).
`
`B.
`
`RJR’s Inequitable Conduct Allegations
`
`10. Altria asserts claims 1-4 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,803,545 in this case. Dkt. 39.
`
`11. On October 16, 2020, after receiving leave from the Court, PMP/Altria pled a
`
`counterclaim of inequitable conduct against RJR’s ’268 Patent in a pleading that included 95
`
`paragraphs. Dkts. 193, 198.
`
`12. On October 30, 2020, RJR moved to dismiss PMP/Altria’s inequitable conduct
`
`defense against the ’268 Patent. Dkt. 269. The Court denied RJR’s motion. Dkt. 361.
`
`13. Also on October 30, 2020, RJR pled its inequitable conduct defense to the ’545
`
`Patent. Dkt. 274.
`
`14. RJR has pled and alleges inequitable conduct against only claim 1 of the ’545
`
`Patent. See Dkt. 274 at ¶¶ 11-31 (only describing limitations of claim 1), Exs. B, D (charting only
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 11 of 39 PageID# 16750
`
`
`
`claim 1).
`
`15. Claim 1 of the ’545 Patent recites:
`
`1. An electrically heated smoking system comprising:
`at least one electrical resistance heating element;
`a lithium ion power source electrically connected to the at least one electrical
`resistance heating element; and
`a controller to control a flow of modulated pulses of electrical power from the
`lithium ion power source to the at least one electrical resistance heating element to
`prevent damage to the lithium ion power source.
`
`16. RJR alleges inequitable conduct against two individuals: ’545 Patent named
`
`inventors Ripley and Higgins. Dkt. 274 at ¶¶ 10-31; see also Ex. 5 at 16-21 (RJR’s Response to
`
`Interrogatory No. 21).
`
`17.
`
`
`
`18.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19. RJR did not depose Mr. Higgins in this case.
`
`
`
`20. RJR also alleges inequitable conduct against Philip Morris Incorporated. See Dkt.
`
`274 at ¶ 3; see also Ex. 5 at 16-21 (RJR’s Response to Interrogatory No. 21).
`
`21. Philip Morris Incorporated, PMUSA’s predecessor, was a corporation and was the
`
`assignee of the ’639 Application during prosecution and the assignee of the ’545 Patent after it
`
`issued. See Dkt. 327 at ¶ 3.
`
`22. RJR alleges inequitable conduct based on the purported deliberate omission or
`
`withholding of two references: Brooks and McCafferty. See Dkt. 274 at ¶¶ 11-31, at Ex. B, D; see
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 12 of 39 PageID# 16751
`
`
`
`also Ex. 5 at 16-21 (RJR’s Response to Interrogatory No. 21).
`
`23. RJR alleges that Mr. Higgins had knowledge of Brooks because certain patents on
`
`which Mr. Higgins is a named inventor reference Brooks or its European counterpart. Dkt. 274 at
`
`¶¶ 12-13; see also Ex. 5 at 18 (RJR’s Response to Interrogatory No. 21).
`
`24. RJR alleges that Mr. Ripley had knowledge of Brooks because Fleischhauer, an
`
`Altria patent on which Mr. Ripley is a named inventor, discusses Brooks in its specification. Dkt.
`
`274 at ¶¶ 12-13; Ex. 5 at 18 (RJR’s Response to Interrogatory No. 21).
`
`25. RJR alleges that Mr. Higgins had knowledge of McCafferty because Mr. Higgins
`
`is a named inventor on McCafferty. See Dkt. 274 at ¶¶ 23-24; see also Ex. 5 at 20 (RJR’s Response
`
`to Interrogatory No. 21).
`
`26. RJR does not expressly allege that Mr. Ripley had knowledge of McCafferty. See
`
`Dkt. 274 at ¶ 24.
`
`C.
`
`RJR’s Allegations and Expert Opinions Regarding The Prior Art At Issue
`1.
`
`Allegations Regarding Brooks
`
`27. RJR’s inequitable conduct pleading includes a claim chart regarding the purported
`
`materiality of Brooks to claim 1 of the ’545 Patent. Dkt. 274 at Ex. B.
`
`28. RJR does not allege or purport to chart that Brooks discloses each and every
`
`element of claim 1. Id. Instead, RJR alleges that claim 1 is invalid for obviousness in light of
`
`Brooks and Counts. Dkt. 274 at Ex. B (“Brooks and Counts render the asserted claims invalid as
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 . . . ”).
`
`29. RJR does not allege that Brooks discloses at least the following elements of claim
`
`1: “a lithium ion power source” or “a controller . . . to prevent damage to the lithium ion power
`
`source” limitation. Dkt. 274 at ¶¶ 18-19.
`
`30. In discovery in this case, RJR has admitted that Brooks does not disclose the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 13 of 39 PageID# 16752
`
`
`
`“lithium ion power source” element of claim 1. Ex. 7 at 4 (RJR’s Resp. to RFA No. 22).
`
`31. RJR’s expert on invalidity for the ’545 patent, Dr. Travis Blalock, has not provided
`
`any opinions regarding inequitable conduct. See generally Ex. 8 (Blalock Rep.)2; see also Ex. 9
`
`at 257:16-20 (Blalock Dep. Tr.).
`
`32. Dr. Blalock does not opine that Brooks anticipates claim 1 (or any other asserted
`
`claim). See Ex. 8 at ¶¶ 42, 133 (Blalock Rep.); see also Ex. 9 at 106:21-107:2 (Blalock Dep. Tr.).3
`
`33. Instead, Dr. Blalock opines that claim 1 “would have been obvious in view of
`
`Brooks and Counts” and “would have been obvious in view of Brooks, Counts, and the Panasonic
`
`Battery Handbook.” See Ex. 8 at ¶¶ 42, 133 (Blalock Rep.). He also opines that claim 1 “would
`
`have been obvious in view of Brooks and Takeuchi” and in view of “Brooks, Takeuchi, and the
`
`Panasonic Battery Handbook.” Id.
`
`2.
`
`Allegations Regarding McCafferty
`
`34. RJR’s inequitable conduct pleading includes a claim chart regarding the purported
`
`materiality of McCafferty to claim 1 of the ’545 Patent. Dkt. 274 at Ex. B.
`
`35. RJR does not allege or purport to chart that McCafferty discloses each and every
`
`element of claim 1. Id. Instead, RJR alleges that claim 1 is invalid for obviousness in light of
`
`McCafferty and Counts. Dkt. 274 at Ex. D (“Counts and McCafferty render the asserted claims
`
`invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 . . . ”).
`
`36. RJR does not allege that McCafferty discloses at least the following elements of
`
`claim 1: “a controller . . . to prevent damage to the lithium ion power source” limitation. Dkt. 274
`
`
`2 Dr. Blalock testified that
` Ex. 9 at 22:4-24:4 (Blalock Dep. Tr.).
`3 Altria’s infringement and validity expert for the ’545 patent, Mr. Joseph McAlexander, opines
`that Brooks does not disclose each of the limitations of claim 1 (or any other asserted claim). Ex.
`10 at ¶¶ 292, 323-324 (McAlexander Declaration).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 14 of 39 PageID# 16753
`
`
`
`at ¶ 22.
`
`37. Dr. Blalock does not opine that McCafferty anticipates claim 1 (or any other
`
`asserted claim). See Ex. 8 at ¶¶ 42, 133, 186 (Blalock Rep.); see also Ex. 9 at 107:9-13 (Blalock
`
`Dep. Tr.).4
`
`38. Instead, Dr. Blalock opines that claim 1 “would have been obvious in view of
`
`McCafferty and Counts” and “would have been obvious in view of McCafferty, Counts, and the
`
`Panasonic Handbook.” Ex. 8 at ¶ 42 (Blalock Rep.). He also opines that claim 1 “would have
`
`been obvious in view of McCafferty and Takeuchi” and in view of “McCafferty, Takeuchi, and
`
`the Panasonic Battery Handbook.” See id. at ¶ 186 (Blalock Rep.).
`
`3.
`
`Allegations Regarding Fleischhauer
`
`39. Dr. Blalock opines that Fleischhauer “anticipates” claim 1 of the ’545 Patent. See
`
`Ex. 8 at ¶ 84 (Blalock Rep.). Dr. Blalock further opines that claim 1 “would have been obvious in
`
`view of Fleischhauer and the Panasonic Battery Handbook.” See id. Dr. Blalock further opines
`
`that claim 1 “would have been obvious in view of Fleischhauer and Takeuchi” and “in view of
`
`Fleischhauer, Takeuchi, and the Panasonic Handbook.” Id. at ¶ 42 (Blalock Rep.).
`
`40. Fleischhauer refers to the disclosure of Brooks and McCafferty in its specification.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 1:57-2:31 (Fleischhauer).
`
`41. In the BACKGROUND OF INVENTION, Fleischhauer states:
`
`
`4 Mr. McAlexander opines that McCafferty does not disclose each of the limitations of claim 1 (or
`any other asserted claim). Ex. 10 at ¶¶ 373, 400, 469 (McAlexander Declaration).
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 15 of 39 PageID# 16754
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 4 at 1:57-2:7 (Fleischhauer).
`
`42. In the BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION, Fleischhauer states:
`
`
`
`Id. at 2:8-31 (Fleischhauer).
`
`
`43.
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ex. 9 at 110:9-112:4 (Blalock Dep. Tr.).
`
`
`
`44. Dr. Blalock offered no express opinions regarding inequitable conduct or the
`
`cumulativeness of the references. See generally Ex. 8 at ¶ 42 (Blalock Rep.); see also Ex. 9 at
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 16 of 39 PageID# 16755
`
`
`
`257:16-20 (Blalock Dep. Tr.).5
`
`D.
`
`RJR Abandoned Its Inequitable Conduct Defense
`
`45. On June 1, 2021, RJR confirmed in writing that “it will not pursue a claim of
`
`inequitable conduct on the ’545 patent.” Ex. 1 at 3. On June 2, 2021, PMP/Altria sent a proposed
`
`stipulated judgment in favor of PMP/Altria with respect to RJR’s inequitable conduct claim. Id.
`
`at 2. RJR rejected the stipulated judgment. Id. at 1.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the
`
`moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); E.W. v. Dolgos, 884
`
`F.3d 172, 178 (4th Cir. 2018).
`
`Inequitable conduct is a defense that implicates “particularly egregious misconduct.”
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc). RJR
`
`bears the burden to prove inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence. See Ohio Willow
`
`Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 813 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016). To meet its burden, RJR must
`
`show that the accused inventors “misrepresented or omitted material information with the specific
`
`intent to deceive the PTO.” Therasense, 649 F.3d at 1291.
`
`To show materiality, RJR must prove that, but for the alleged misrepresentation or
`
`omission, the PTO would not have allowed the disputed claim to issue. Id. RJR must show why
`
`“the withheld information is material and not cumulative” of information already before the PTO.
`
`Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1329-30 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`The Federal Circuit requires stringent proof of specific intent. RJR “must prove by clear
`
`
`5 Mr. McAlexander explains that Brooks and McCafferty are cumulative of Fleischhauer according
`to the opinions of Dr. Blalock. Ex. 10 at ¶ 468 (McAlexander Declaration); see also Ex. 3 at 103-
`06 (’545 Patent File History).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 17 of 39 PageID# 16756
`
`
`
`and convincing evidence that the applicant knew of the reference, knew that it was material, and
`
`made a deliberate decision to withhold it.” Therasense, 649 F.3d at 1290. “A finding that the
`
`misrepresentation or omission amounts to gross negligence or negligence under a ‘should have
`
`known’ standard does not satisfy this intent requirement.” Id.; see id. at 1290-91 (“[W]hen there
`
`are multiple reasonable inferences that may be drawn, intent to deceive cannot be found.”).
`
`“[D]eceptive intent” must be “the single most reasonable inference to be drawn from the
`
`evidence.” Ohio Willow Wood, 813 F.3d at 1357. The purported absence of a good faith
`
`explanation for withholding a material reference does not, by itself, prove specific intent to
`
`deceive. Therasense, 649 F.3d at 1291.
`
`Courts in this District grant summary judgment of no inequitable conduct where an accused
`
`infringer fails to bring sufficient proof of either (1) materiality or (2) specific intent. See, e.g., Va.
`
`Innovation Scis. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 11 F. Supp. 3d 622, 644 (E.D. Va. 2014) (ruling no
`
`reasonable fact finder could find by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant withheld
`
`material information with the specific intent to deceive the PTO); MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Rexam
`
`PLC, 809 F. Supp. 2d 463, 476 (E.D. Va. 2011), vacated-in-part on other grounds, 731 F.3d 1258
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`RJR Abandoned Its Meritless Inequitable Conduct Defense
`
`RJR’s (admittedly baseless) inequitable conduct claim cannot proceed because it has
`
`abandoned it.6 On June 1, 2021, RJR confirmed in writing that “it will not pursue a claim of
`
`inequitable conduct on the ’545 patent.” Ex. 1. Because RJR will not present this claim at trial,
`
`
`6 PMP/Altria sought to dispose of this motion by proposing a stipulated judgment regarding
`RJR’s dropped inequitable conduct claim. RJR rejected it. Ex. 1.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 18 of 39 PageID# 16757
`
`
`
`summary judgment is proper and the Court need not address the merits of RJR’s baseless claim.
`
`See, e.g., TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Sys., 326 F. Supp. 3d 105, 111 (E.D. Va. 2018) (J. O’Grady)
`
`(entering judgment in plaintiff’s favor on defendant’s affirmative defense at summary judgment).
`
`B.
`
`Summary Judgment Of No Inequitable Conduct Is Warranted On The
`Merits
`
`In addition to RJR’s concession of no inequitable conduct, summary judgment of no ’545
`
`Patent inequitable conduct is warranted on the merits.
`
`1.
`
`Brooks and McCafferty Are Not But For Material
`
`RJR cannot meet its burden to show that Brooks or McCafferty are but for material to the
`
`patentability of claim 1 of the ’545 Patent.7 The Examiner indisputably considered Fleischhauer
`
`during prosecution—an Altria patent that (i) indisputably discusses both Brooks and McCafferty
`
`in detail, and (ii) which RJR’s own invalidity contentions and expert opinions purport discloses
`
`more than Brooks or McCafferty.
`
`References that are cumulative of the information before the PTO are not but for material
`
`as a matter of law. Exergen, 575 F.3d at 1329-30. This District has explained that a “reference is
`
`cumulative when it ‘teaches no more than what a reasonable examiner would consider to be taught
`
`by the prior art already before the PTO.’” CertusView Techs., LLC v. S&N Locating Servs., LLC,
`
`198 F. Supp. 3d 568, 597 (E.D. Va. 2016) (discussing 37 C.F.R. 1.56(b)) (citations omitted); see
`
`also Larson Mfg. Co. of S.D., Inc. v. Aluminart Prods. Ltd., 559 F.3d 1317, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`In turn, where a reference before the Examiner purportedly discloses more than the allegedly
`
`
`7 Because RJR’s pleading (and contention interrogatory response) alleges inequitable conduct only
`as to claim 1 (see, e.g., Undisputed Material Fact No. 14), RJR’s defense is limited to that claim.
`See Exergen, 575 F.3d at 1329 (requiring accused infringers to identify “which claims, and which
`limitations in those claims, the withheld references are relevant to, and where in those references
`the material information is found”).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 696 Filed 06/02/21 Page 19 of 39 PageID# 16758
`
`
`
`omitted reference, there is cumulativeness as a matter of law. Larson Mfg., 559 F.3d at 1332;
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic Vascular, Inc., 485 F. Supp. 2d 538, 550 (D.
`
`Del. 2007). Those principles are dispositive here.
`
`As noted, Fleischhauer expressly discusses each of Brooks and McCafferty – by name – in
`
`its specification. Supra SMF Nos. 41-42; see also Ex. 4 at 1:57-2:7 (Fleischhauer) (discussing
`
`McCafferty), 2:8-31 (discussing Brooks). In particular, Fleischhauer states that McCafferty
`
`discloses a controller for an electrical smoking system that regulates the amount of power delivered
`
`to the heating element, which RJR purports is information withheld from the PTO. Ex. 4 at 1:57-
`
`2:7 (Fleischhauer); Dkt. 274 at ¶ 29. Similarly, Fleischhauer states Brooks discloses a smoking
`
`article which includes an electrical resistance heating element and a current regulating circuit
`
`which switches the current on and off, which RJR purports is information withheld from the PTO.
`
`Ex. 4 at 2:8-31 (Fleischhauer); Dkt. 274 at ¶ 19. Thus, Fleischhauer discloses not only the
`
`existence of Brooks and McCafferty and their respective patent numbers, but also the subject
`
`matter that RJR alleges is material.
`
`RJR’s own expert, Dr. Blalock, opines that Fleischhauer discloses more than either Brooks
`
`or McCafferty with regard to claim 1. In particular, he opines that Fleischhauer anticipates—i.e.,
`
`discloses every element of—claim 1. Ex. 8 at ¶ 84 (Blalock Rep.). By contrast, he opines that
`
`Brooks and McCafferty each would render claim 1 obvious in combination with mu