Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 763-3 Filed 06/30/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 20591
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 763-3 Filed 06/30/21 Page 1 of 3 Page|D# 20591
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 763-3 Filed 06/30/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 20592
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Jennifer - -
`
`Michalik, John M. <jmichalik@JonesDay.com>
`Tuesday, May 18, 2021 10:50 PM
`Koh, Jennifer (SD); #C-M PMIEDVA - LW TEAM
`RJREDVA; Charles Molster
`RE: RAI Strategic Holdings v. Altria Client Services (EDVa) - Affirmative Defenses
`
`We disagree with your characterizations below. Nonetheless, we are still considering your request and will get back to
`you.
`
`Regarding Defendants’ claims, please let us know by noon ET on Thursday if Defendants intend to drop any of their
`asserted claims.
`
`John M. Michalik
`Partner
`JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide℠
`77 West Wacker
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`Office +1.312.269.4215
`Mobile +1.312.315.5926
`jmichalik@jonesday.com
`
`From: Jennifer.Koh@lw.com <Jennifer.Koh@lw.com>
`Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 6:17 PM
`To: RJREDVA <RJREDVA@jonesday.com>
`Cc: pmiedva.lwteam@lw.com
`Subject: RAI Strategic Holdings v. Altria Client Services (EDVa) - Affirmative Defenses
`
`** External mail **
`
`Counsel,
`
`Reynolds has raised nearly a dozen affirmative defenses against Altria, PM USA, and PMP’s
`Counterclaims, in addition to those raised against individual entities. Reynolds appears to have
`effectively abandoned several of these defenses throughout the course of discovery. For example, in
`response to PMP/Altria’s Interrogatory No. 21, which sought the factual bases for and documents to
`be used in support of Reynolds’ affirmative defenses, Reynolds provided boilerplate responses for
`several of its defenses. Despite serving a supplemental response on April 12 updating the support for
`two of its affirmative defenses, Reynolds’ responses to several others remain cursory. In order to
`streamline the case, please confirm that Reynolds will not be pursuing the following affirmative
`defenses at trial.
`
`1. Fifth Affirmative Defense: Equitable Defenses
`In its October 29, 2020 Response to Interrog. No. 21, Reynolds stated that enforcement of the
`patents-in-suit was “barred by one or more of the equitable doctrines, such as estoppel,
`acquiescence, waiver, and unclean hands.” Reynolds’ Third Suppl. Resp. to Defs.’ Third Set of
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 763-3 Filed 06/30/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 20593
`
`Interrogs. (No. 21) at 5 (“Rog. Response”). Although Reynolds stated that it would further supplement
`its response as discovery progressed, it has not yet done so. See id.
`
`
`2. Sixth Affirmative Defense: Limitation on Damages Under 35 U.S.C. § 287
`For the PMP Asserted Patents, Reynolds has not identified any product it believes is subject to the
`marking requirements of Section 287. Reynolds therefore has failed to carry its initial burden of
`production under Arctic Cat.
`
`
`3. Eighth Affirmative Defense: Ensnarement
`In its initial Rog Response, Reynolds complained that PMP/Altria had “provided no more than
`boilerplate statements regarding infringement . . . under the doctrine of equivalents,” and it was
`“therefore not able, at this time, to fully respond” and explain the basis for its defense of ensnarement.
`Rog. Response at 6. The parties have since addressed infringement under the doctrine of equivalents
`extensively in expert reports. Yet Reynolds still has not supplemented its response.
`
`
`4. Eleventh Affirmative Defense: Extraterritorial Claims
`Reynolds did not identify any extraterritorial activities that Counterclaim Plaintiffs purportedly rely on
`for their infringement claims in its initial Response, and to date has not supplemented its response.
`See Rog. Response at 7, 10-11.
`
`
`Please let us know by Tuesday, May 18 whether Reynolds agrees to drop these affirmative
`defenses. If Reynolds does not agree, we intend to seek summary judgment on the affirmative
`defenses identified above.
`
`Regards,
`Jennifer
`
`Jennifer Koh
`
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`12670 High Bluff Drive
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Direct Dial: +1.858.523.3949
`Email: jennifer.koh@lw.com
`https://www.lw.com
`
`
`_________________________________
`
`This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of
`the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express
`permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all
`copies including any attachments.
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP or any of its affiliates may monitor electronic communications sent or received by our
`networks in order to protect our business and verify compliance with our policies and relevant legal
`requirements. Any personal information contained or referred to within this electronic communication will be
`processed in accordance with the firm's privacy notices and Global Privacy Standards available at www.lw.com.
`***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected
`by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system
`without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.***
`
`2
`
`