Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735 Filed 06/16/21 Page 1 of 30 PageID# 20059
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`Civil No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`
`
`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.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735 Filed 06/16/21 Page 2 of 30 PageID# 20060
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS....................................................................................... 1 
`A.
`Facts Relevant To Reynolds’s Withdrawal of Its Inequitable Conduct
`Claim And Certain Affirmative Defenses. ............................................................. 1 
`Facts Relevant To Whether The ’374 Patent Is Obvious In Light Of
`Chinese Utility Model Patent CN 201482667 U. .................................................. 3 
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 6 
`I.
`ALTRIA IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON REYNOLDS’S
`WITHDRAWN COUNTERCLAIM OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT AGAINST
`THE ’545 PATENT. .......................................................................................................... 6 
`THE COURT SHOULD DENY PMP AND ALTRIA’S MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY, WHICH PERTAINS TO THE
`’374 PATENT. ................................................................................................................... 8 
`A.
`PMP And Altria’s Gamesmanship Should Preclude Their Argument That
`CN ’667 Does Not Satisfy Section 102(a), Which In Any Event Is
`Inconsistent With The Statutory Language. ........................................................... 9 
`1.
`The Court Should Bar PMP And Altria From Relying On Liu’s
`Inventorship Of CN ’667 Because They First Revealed That
`Information After Discovery Closed, Despite Bearing A Duty To
`Supplement. ............................................................................................... 9 
`CN ’667 Is Prior Art On A Proper Reading Of Section 102(a). .............. 13 
`2.
`CN ’667 Qualifies As Prior Art Under Section 102(d). ................................................... 14 
`B.
`CN ’667 Qualifies As Prior Art For The Independent Reason That The
`’374 Patent’s Priority Date Is July 7, 2015. ......................................................... 17 
`PMP AND ALTRIA ARE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
`REYNOLDS’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES. ............................................................... 18 
`A.
`Equitable Defenses (Fifth Affirmative Defense). ................................................ 18 
`B.
`Limitation Of Damages (Sixth Affirmative Defense). ........................................ 19 
`C.
`Ensnarement (Eighth Affirmative Defense). ....................................................... 20 
`D.
`Extraterritorial Claims (Eleventh Affirmative Defense). ..................................... 22 
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735 Filed 06/16/21 Page 3 of 30 PageID# 20061
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Advanced Tech. Incubator, Inc. v. Sharp Corp.,
`No. 2:07-CV-468, 2009 WL 4670435 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 4, 2009) ............................................20
`
`Bayer AG v. Schein Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`301 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................17
`
`Brucker v. Taylor,
`No. 1:16-cv-1414-GBL, 2017 WL 11506332 (E.D. Va. Sept. 1, 2017) ..................................20
`
`Civix-DDI, LLC v. Cellco Partnership,
`387 F. Supp. 2d 869 (N.D. Ill. 2005) .........................................................................................7
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................21, 22
`
`Dippin’ Dots, Inc. v. Mosey,
`476 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................16
`
`Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc.,
`545 U.S. 546 (2005) .................................................................................................................16
`
`Flast v. Cohen,
`392 U.S. 83 (1968) .....................................................................................................................8
`
`G. David Jang, M.D. v. Boston Sci. Corp.,
`872 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................22
`
`GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`976 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................10
`
`Hamed v. Saul,
`432 F. Supp. 3d 610 (E.D. Va. 2020) ......................................................................................20
`
`Hickman v. Taylor,
`329 U.S. 495 (1947) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`IBM Corp. v. Priceline Grp. Inc.,
`271 F. Supp. 3d 667 (D. Del. 2017) .........................................................................................20
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735 Filed 06/16/21 Page 4 of 30 PageID# 20062
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Page
`
`In re Carlson,
`983 F.2d 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1992)................................................................................................16
`
`In re Kathawala,
`9 F.3d 942 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .....................................................................................................17
`
`In re Katz,
`687 F.3d 450 (C.C.P.A. Aug. 27, 1982) ............................................................................13, 14
`
`In re Wertheim,
`646 F.2d 527 (C.C.P.A. Apr. 9, 1981) .....................................................................................16
`
`Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit,
`547 U.S. 71 (2006) ...................................................................................................................16
`
`OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc.,
`122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................15
`
`Projects Mgmt. Co. v. DynCorp Int’l LLC,
`734 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................12
`
`Shenandoah Valley Network v. Capka,
`669 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................................7
`
`Soley v. Star & Herald Co.,
`390 F.2d 364 (5th Cir. 1968) ...................................................................................................20
`
`Southern States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co.,
`318 F.3d 592 (4th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................10, 11
`
`Southwest Bell Telephone, L.P. v. Arthur Collins, Inc.,
`454 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Tex. 2006) ......................................................................................7
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`326 F. Supp. 3d 105 (E.D. Va. 2018) ........................................................................................7
`
`Trebro Mfg. v. Firefly Equip., LLC,
`748 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................13, 14
`
`Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`774 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................17
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735 Filed 06/16/21 Page 5 of 30 PageID# 20063
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Page
`
`United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`356 U.S. 677 (1958) .............................................................................................................9, 12
`
`United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co.,
`11 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 1993) ...............................................................................................11, 12
`
`Wilkins v. Montgomery,
`751 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Williams v. ABM Parking Servs. Inc.,
`296 F. Supp. 3d 779 (E.D. Va. 2017) ..................................................................................7, 21
`
`Zimmer Tech., Inc. v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.,
`453 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (N.D. Ind. 2006) .....................................................................................7
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1744 ............................................................................................................................20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 100 ..............................................................................................................................18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................................14, 15, 16, 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 252 ..............................................................................................................................20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 286 ................................................................................................................................2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ................................................................................................................1, 2, 20, 21
`
`America Invents Act § 3(n)(1), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 ...............................................18
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 ...................................................................................................................6, 8, 19
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) ......................................................................................................................22
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 .......................................................................................................................9, 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 .................................................................................................................9, 10, 11
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735 Filed 06/16/21 Page 6 of 30 PageID# 20064
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 ...................................................................................................................6, 8, 19
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 .............................................................................................................................6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 .............................................................................................................................1
`
`Local Civil Rule 56(B) .....................................................................................................................1
`
`MPEP § 2135 (9th ed. Rev. 10, 2019) .....................................................................................15, 17
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735 Filed 06/16/21 Page 7 of 30 PageID# 20065
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively,
`Plaintiffs or Reynolds) submit this response in opposition to the motion for partial summary judg-
`ment filed by Altria Client Services LLC (Altria), Philip Morris USA, Inc. (PM USA), and Philip
`Morris Products S.A. (PMP) (collectively, Defendants) on June 2, 2021 (Dkt. 694).
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`A. FACTS RELEVANT TO REYNOLDS’S WITHDRAWAL OF ITS INEQUITABLE
`CONDUCT CLAIM AND CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES.1
`1.
`On April 9, 2021, the parties entered a “Joint Pre-trial Stipulation” in which Reyn-
`olds agreed that it would “drop[ ] and will not pursue its Sixth Affirmative Defense (Limitation on
`Damages under 35 U.S.C. § 287, see, e.g., Dkt. 70 at 18) for the ’374 Patent.” Dkt. 549. PM USA,
`owner of the ’545 Patent, agreed to “drop[ ] its claim for pre-suit damages for infringement of the
`’545 Patent, and will not pursue any claim for damages arising from alleged acts of infringement
`of the ’545 Patent occurring before June 29, 2020.” Id.
`2.
`On June 2, 2021, both parties moved for summary judgment. See Pls.’ Partial Mot.
`for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 688 (June 2, 2021); Mot. for Summary Judgment by Altria Client
`Services LLC, Philip Morris Products S.A. & Philip Morris USA, Inc., Dkt. 695 (June 2, 2021).
`3.
`On June 1, Defendants’ counsel asked Plaintiffs’ counsel if Plaintiffs intended to
`abandon any counterclaim or defense. (Ex. A). Plaintiffs responded that they intend to not pursue,
`
`
`1 These facts relate to claims and defenses Reynolds has withdrawn and for which Reynolds seeks
`an order of the Court dismissing them—because Defendants have refused to stipulate to their dis-
`missal and insist on a “judgment” instead. In addition, several of these statements merely recite
`the positions the parties have taken and their exchanges leading up to Defendants’ motion for
`summary judgment. They are not issues to be decided by the Court or a jury. Even so, Defendants
`have presented analogous “statements of material fact” in their memorandum, and, out of an abun-
`dance of caution and to preempt an argument by Defendants that a failure to respond counts as an
`admission under Local Civil Rule 56(B), Reynolds provides this counterstatement of material facts.
`To be clear, however, summary judgment should not be entered on any of these facts. See Fed. R.
`Civ. P. 56 advisory committee’s notes to 2010 amendment (nonmovants should be permitted “to
`avoid the cost of detailed response to all facts stated by the movant . . . without running the risk
`that the fact will be taken as established under subdivision (g) or otherwise found to have been
`accepted for other purposes”).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735 Filed 06/16/21 Page 8 of 30 PageID# 20066
`
`
`
`
`
`and to withdraw, the following:
`(a)
`A counterclaim and affirmative defense that U.S. Patent No. 6,803,545 (the ’545
`Patent) is unenforceable for inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trade-
`mark Office. See Pls.’ Am. Answer & Counterclaim to Defs. Altria Client Servs.
`LLC & Philip Morris USA, Inc.’s Am. Counterclaims, Dkt. 274 at 19-26 (Oct. 30,
`2020).
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`The equitable defenses of estoppel, acquiescence, waiver, and unclean hands as to
`allegations that Plaintiffs infringed U.S. Patent No. 10,104,911 (the ’911 Patent)
`and U.S. Patent No. 10,555,556 (the ’556 Patent). See Pls.’ Answer to Def. Philip
`Morris Products S.A.’s Second Am. Counterclaims, Dkt. 523 at 18 (Mar. 26, 2021).
`
`The equitable defenses of estoppel, waiver, and acquiescence as to allegations that
`Plaintiffs infringed U.S. Patent No. 10,420,374 (“the ’374 Patent”) and U.S. Patent
`No. 9,814,265 (the ’265 Patent). See Dkt. 274 at 19; Dkt. 523 at 18.
`
`The equitable defense of unclean hands as to allegations that Plaintiffs infringed
`U.S. Patent No. 6,803,545 (the ’545 Patent).2 Dkt. 274 at 19.
`
`The defense that damages are statutorily limited by a failure to satisfy the require-
`ments of 35 U.S.C. §§ 286 and 287 as to the infringement allegations for the ’911,
`’556, and ’265 Patents.3 See Dkt. 523 at 18.
`
`The defense that the allegations of infringement as to the ’911, ’556, and ’265 Pa-
`tents are barred to the extent they are founded on activities occurring outside the
`territorial reach of U.S. patent laws. Id. at 19.
`
`The defense that the allegations of infringement as to the ’545 and ’374 Patents are
`barred to the extent they are founded on activities occurring outside the territorial
`reach of U.S. patent laws. Doc. 274 at 20.
`
`(Ex. B).
`4.
`On June 2, Defendants responded by proposing a seven-page stipulation providing
`that “judgment” was to be entered on the withdrawn counterclaim and defenses. (Ex. C). The
`proposed stipulation included numerous recitals. (Ex. D).
`5.
`Plaintiffs’ counsel responded that it is not “appropriate or necessary to stipulate to
`judgment on the defenses Reynolds has indicated it does not intend to pursue.” (Ex. E). Plaintiffs
`
`
`2 Plaintiffs are not withdrawing their equitable defenses of estoppel, acquiescence, or waiver as to
`the ’545 Patent. See Dkt. 274 at 19.
`3 Plaintiffs are not withdrawing their defense as to the ’545 and ’374 Patents, which is covered by
`a stipulation. See Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation, Dkt. 549 (Apr. 9, 2021).
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735 Filed 06/16/21 Page 9 of 30 PageID# 20067
`
`
`
`
`
`therefore prepared a one-paragraph stipulation of dismissal with prejudice (rather than judgment).
`(Ex. F); Draft Stipulation (Ex. G) and Proposed Order (Ex. H). Defendants rejected the stipulation.
`(Ex. I).
`6.
`Both Reynolds and PM USA have previously dropped claims and defenses by stip-
`ulation, without entry of judgment. See Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation, Dkt. 549 (Apr. 9, 2021).
`7.
`Defendants then moved for summary judgment on the withdrawn counterclaim and
`affirmative defenses. See Dkt. 694 at 10-17, 29 (June 2, 2021).
`8.
`On June 14, Plaintiffs clarified that they would no longer pursue their equitable
`defense of unclean hands as to the ’265 Patent and ’374 Patent. (Ex. X).
`
`B. FACTS RELEVANT TO WHETHER THE ’374 PATENT IS OBVIOUS IN LIGHT
`OF CHINESE UTILITY MODEL PATENT CN 201482667 U.
`9.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,420,374 (the ’374 Patent) is directed to an improved puff sensor
`assembly of an electronic vaping device. Ex. J (’374 Patent). It was filed on July 7, 2015, and
`issued on September 24, 2019. Ex. J. cover page.
`10.
`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. K (’949 PCT Application); Ex. L
`(McAlexander Second Supp. Expert Rep.) ¶¶ 578-95.
`11.
`As explained in the brief in support of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
`by Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (Plaintiffs’ MSJ
`Brief), the ’374 Patent is not entitled to the ’949 PCT Application’s 2010 priority date because the
`disclosure of the ’949 PCT Application does not support the claims of the ’374 Patent. Dkt. 686
`at 1-4, 13-18. As a result, the ’374 Patent is invalid as anticipated by the products Altria and PM
`USA accuse of infringement in this lawsuit. Id. at 13. In the interest of economy and brevity,
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the cited pages of their MSJ Brief, along with the related evi-
`dentiary exhibits.
`12.
`Plaintiffs also contend that the asserted claims of the ’374 Patent are invalid because
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735 Filed 06/16/21 Page 10 of 30 PageID# 20068
`
`
`
`
`
`they were obvious based on prior art, even using PMP and Altria’s claimed priority date of June 29,
`2010. Ex. M, Plaintiffs’ 2/20/21 17th Suppl. Resps. & Objs. to Defts.’ First Set of Interrogs. at
`135.
`
`13.
`As relevant to the ’374 Patent, one item of prior art is Chinese Utility Model Patent
`CN 201482667 U (CN ’667). Ex. M, Plaintiffs’ 17th Suppl. Resps. & Objs. to Defts.’ First Set of
`Interrogs. at Ex. B-10 at 1 (identifying CN ’667 as “Liao”).
`14.
`CN ’667 was filed on April 28, 2009, and published and granted on May 26, 2010.
`Ex. N, CN ’667 at 1.
`15.
`CN ’667 identifies “Minilogic Device Co., Ltd.” as the patentee. Ex. N, CN ’667 at
`
`1.
`
`16.
`Plaintiffs arranged for a translation of CN ’667. Ex. N, CN ’667 at 1. In translating
`names rendered with Chinese characters, the translator applied a Mandarin Romanization. Ex. N,
`CN ’667 at 1; Ex. O, Letter from J. Koh to J. Michalik (May 10, 2021). As a result, the name of
`the inventor of CN ’667 was translated as follows: Liao Laiying. Ex. N, CN ’667 at 1. Reynolds
`produced its translation of CN ’667 to Altria as RJREDVA_001626584 on December 4, 2020.
`17.
`By December 2, 2020, Plaintiffs had explained to Altria and PMP that CN ’667 is
`prior art that, together with other prior art, renders the ’374 Patent obvious and thus invalid. See
`Ex. M, Plaintiffs’ 17th Suppl. Resps. & Objs. to Defts.’ First Set of Interrogs. at 135 (identifying
`CN 201482667 U as prior art).
`18.
`On February 20, 2021, Plaintiffs served a Supplemental Discovery Response
`demonstrating that they understood the inventor of CN ’667 (Liao) to be a different person than
`the inventor of the ’374 Patent (Liu). See Ex. M, Plaintiffs’ 17th Suppl. Resps. & Objs. to Defts.’
`First Set of Interrogs. at Ex. B-10 at 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs set out their view that CN ’667
`qualified as prior art under “at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e),” as those provisions stood
`before the America Invents Act. Ex. M, Plaintiffs’ 17th Suppl. Resps. & Objs. to Defts.’ First Set
`of Interrogs. at Ex. B-10 at 1. As Philip Morris and Altria are aware, two of the cited provisions—
`Subsections (a) and (e)—have been interpreted not to apply to an inventor’s own earlier work.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735 Filed 06/16/21 Page 11 of 30 PageID# 20069
`
`
`
`
`
`Dkt. 694 at 21-23.
`19.
`On February 23, 2021, PMP and Altria responded to an Interrogatory instructing
`them to, among other things, “Identify and Describe [their] contentions relating to … [their claim]
`of nonobviousness of the” ’374 Patent. Ex. P, Altria Client Services LLC & Philip Morris USA
`Inc.’s 2nd Suppl. Objs. & Resps. to Pltfs.’ 2nd Set of Interrogs. (No. 15) at 5. While PMP and
`Altria argued that other references cited by Plaintiffs did not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102, they never suggested that Plaintiffs had mistranslated CN ’667 or misidentified its inventor,
`much less that the same person—Liu—invented both CN ’667 and the ’374 Patent. Id. at 15-45.
`Moreover, PMP and Altria consistently referred to CN ’667 as “Liao,” as opposed to a different
`piece of prior art they designated as “Liu.” Id. at 32, 42.
`20.
`Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Travis Blalock, submitted his expert report concerning the
`invalidity of the ’374 Patent (and another patent) on February 24, 2021. See Ex. Q, Blalock Open-
`ing Expert Report. As relevant here, Dr. Blalock opined:
`
`(a) “Claims 1-10 [of the ’374 Patent] would have been obvious” in view of CN ’667,
`U.S. Patent No. 8,661,910, and CN 201514238 U. See id. at ¶ 46; id. at ¶¶ 303-
`445.
`
`(b) “Claims 16-25 would have been obvious” in view of CN ’667, U.S. Patent No.
`8,661,910, CN 201514238 U, and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0081639, see
`id. at ¶ 46; id. at ¶¶ 446-660.
`
`Dr. Blalock also offered two other grounds for his conclusion of invalidity, independent of CN
`’667. See id. at ¶ 46; id. ¶¶ 661-738.
`21. Mr. Liu was deposed on March 23, 2021. Both expert and fact discovery closed on
`April 12, 2021. Dkt. 461. The deadline for fact depositions was extended to April 19, and the
`deadline for expert depositions was extended to May 12. Dkts. 534, 535.
`22.
`On May 10, 2021, Philip Morris and Altria sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a letter in which
`Philip Morris and Altria for the first time challenged Reynolds’s translation of CN ’667 on the
`ground that it mistranslated the name of the inventor and, as a result, did not indicate that the
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735 Filed 06/16/21 Page 12 of 30 PageID# 20070
`
`
`
`
`
`inventor of CN ’667 was the same as the inventor of the ’374 Patent: “It appears Reynolds’ trans-
`lation is based on a Mandarin Romanization of the inventor’s name. Yet, based on a Cantonese
`Romanization, the inventor’s name as identified on [CN ’667] is ‘Loi Ying Liu,’ as it appears on
`the ’374 patent.” Ex. O, Letter from J. Koh to J. Michalik (May 10, 2021). As a result of this
`“common inventorship,” Philip Morris and Altria claimed that CN ’667 does not qualify as “prior
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (or any other provision).” Id.
`23.
`In light of PMP and Altria’s new claim of common inventorship, Plaintiffs identi-
`fied 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) “as a basis for [CN ’667’s] status as prior art if it has the same inventor as
`the ’374 [P]atent.” Ex. R, Letter from S. Laud to J. Koh (May 12, 2021) at 2; see Ex. S, Pltfs.’
`22nd Suppl. Resps. to Defts.’ First Set of Interrogs. at 77.
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`ALTRIA IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON REYNOLDS’S
`WITHDRAWN COUNTERCLAIM OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT AGAINST
`THE ’545 PATENT.
`Altria has submitted seventeen pages of a memorandum in support of summary judgment
`on a counterclaim—inequitable conduct on the ’545 patent—that Reynolds confirmed in writing
`it is withdrawing and is not pursuing. Dkt. 694; Ex. B. In fact, Reynolds proposed a stipulated
`dismissal of the counterclaim (and certain affirmative defenses, discussed below), which Altria
`rejected, instead insisting that it is entitled to a “judgment.” Exs. G & I. Altria said it would accept
`only a stipulated “judgment,” replete with irrelevant recitals and characterizations of Reynolds’s
`actions. Ex. I. Rule 54(a) makes plain that a proper “[j]udgment” is “any order from which an
`appeal lies” and it “should not include recitals of pleadings, a master’s report, or a record of prior
`proceedings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a) (emphasis added). Reynolds had no obligation to go along
`with Altria’s attempt to transmogrify an interlocutory order of recitals into an actual judgment.
`Reynolds therefore has been forced to file a separate motion under Federal Rules of Civil Proce-
`dure 15 and 41 to dismiss the counterclaim and some of its affirmative defenses. Reynolds regrets
`that such a simple and routine matter—withdrawing a handful of claims and defenses after the
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735 Filed 06/16/21 Page 13 of 30 PageID# 20071
`
`
`
`
`
`close of discovery—has unnecessarily multiplied the proceedings in this Court. But, given Altria’s
`stance, Reynolds has no other choice.
`Altria incorrectly asserts that “summary judgment is proper” despite Reynolds’s with-
`drawal of the counterclaim. Dkt. 694, at 11. Altria cites a single decision in support—one by this
`Court granting summary judgment on an affirmative defense that was not withdrawn and thus was
`not rendered moot at the time of the order. See TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 326 F. Supp. 3d
`105, 111-12 (E.D. Va. 2018) (rejecting, over the course of five paragraphs, Adobe’s arguments
`against summary judgment on its government sales defense).
`Decisions actually addressing the issue hold that “it is improper for a court to grant sum-
`mary judgment on an issue that a party is no longer asserting.” Zimmer Tech., Inc. v. Howmedica
`Osteonics Corp., 453 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1043 (N.D. Ind. 2006). In Zimmer Technology, the court
`explained that granting summary judgment on withdrawn invalidity defenses would be “inappro-
`priate because such would merely be an academic exercise resulting in an advisory opinion.” Id.
`Instead, “the appropriate response is to deny these issues as moot.” Id. The same conclusion was
`reached by the court in Southwest Bell Telephone, L.P. v. Arthur Collins, Inc., 454 F. Supp. 2d 600
`(N.D. Tex. 2006), where the nonmovant stated in its summary judgment response “that it is not
`asserting infringement by this class of devices,” the movant “nonetheless insist[ed] that it is enti-
`tled to summary judgment of non-infringement,” and the court “dismisse[d] these claims as with-
`drawn.” Id. at 606. In yet another decision, the court in Civix-DDI, LLC v. Cellco Partnership,
`387 F. Supp. 2d 869 (N.D. Ill. 2005), held that “Expedia is not entitled to summary judgment on
`claims that are not part of this dispute.” Id. at 881. Indeed, the court observed that “it would be
`inequitable for Expedia to encourage Civix to narrow its asserted claims, and then later seek sum-
`mary judgment on those same dropped claims,” id., precisely the situation here. This Court, too,
`has applied the rule that where a defendant stipulates to a fact, “plaintiff’s motion for summary
`judgment on this issue is moot and must therefore be denied.” Williams v. ABM Parking Servs.
`Inc., 296 F. Supp. 3d 779, 783-84 (E.D. Va. 2017).
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735 Filed 06/16/21 Page 14 of 30 PageID# 20072
`
`
`
`
`
`Contrary to its assertions, Altria is not entitled to summary judgment or any kind of judg-
`ment on the claims and defenses Reynolds has withdrawn. This Court’s authority under Article
`III extends only so far as deciding “actual controversies,” Shenandoah Valley Network v. Capka,
`669 F.3d 194, 201-02 (4th Cir. 2012), and its power to issue judgments requires competing con-
`tentions between adverse litigants that are “capable of resolution through the judicial process.”
`Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968). The Court should either dismiss the inequitable conduct
`counterclaim or grant Reynolds pending motion for leave to dismiss the claim under Rules 15 and
`41.
`
`II.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD DENY PMP AND ALTRIA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY, WHICH PERTAINS TO THE ’374 PATENT.
`In their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No Invalidity, PMP and Altria seek a
`determination that the ’374 Patent is not obvious in view of combinations of prior art that include
`CN ’667. PMP & Altria’s SJ Memo at 19 & n.9, 26; see Statement of Material Facts (“SMF”)
`¶ 20 (setting out the grounds of obviousness potentially affected by this motion). PMP and Altria’s
`motion turns entirely on their argument that, as a matter of law, CN ’667 cannot be considered
`prior art for the purpose of determining the obviousness of the ’374 Patent in this case. That
`argument fails for several reasons. First, PMP and Altria should be barred from succeeding on
`their sole challenge to prior art status under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a): That challenge rests on the fact
`that CN ’667 and the ’374 Patent share an inventor, but PMP and Altria did not reveal that fact
`until after discovery closed, despite bearing a duty to do so. Second, CN ’667 qualifies as prior
`art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(d), which (contrary to PMP and Altria’s argument) does not
`impose a requirement that the prior art anticipate the challenged patent. Finally, PMP and Altria’s
`effort to resist application of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) fails because it rests on an improper assessment
`of the priority date of the ’374 Patent. The upshot is that all of PMP and Altria’s arguments fail
`as a matter of law—and so their Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 735 Filed 06/16/21 Page 15 of 30 PageID# 20073
`
`
`
`
`
`A. PMP And Altria’s Gamesmanship Should Preclude Their Argument That CN ’667
`Does Not Satisfy Section 102(a), Which In Any Event Is Inconsistent With The Stat-
`utory Language.
`1.
`
`The Court Should Bar PMP And Altria From Relying On Liu’s Inven-
`torship Of CN ’667 Because They First Revealed That Information Af-
`ter Discovery Closed, Despite Bearing A Duty To Supplement.
`A.
`The Court should not allow PMP and Altria to rely on Liu’s inventorship of CN
`’667, which they withheld, to defeat CN ’667’s status as prior art under Section 102(a). “Mutual
`knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation.” Hick-
`man v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947). Modern discovery therefore was developed to allow
`“parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial.” Id. at 501.
`Stated a little differently, “modern instruments of discovery” and “pretrial procedures” are in-
`tended to “make a trial [proceeding] less a game of blind man’s bluff an