Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 1 of 35 PageID# 20932
`
`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.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM AND
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BY PLAINTIFFS RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC.
`AND R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY AND OPPOSITION TO COUNTERCLAIM
`PLAINTIFFS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 2 of 35 PageID# 20933
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 2 
`A.
`Reynolds Pleaded Inequitable Conduct In Good Faith .......................................... 2 
`B.
`Reynolds Conducted Discovery On The Inequitable Conduct Claim ................... 3 
`C.
`As A Strategic Matter, Reynolds Narrowed Its Claims And Provided
`Timely Notice To Altria/PMP ............................................................................... 4 
`REPLY ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS ................................. 6 
`A.
`Dismissal, Rather Than Summary Judgment, Is The Appropriate
`Disposition When A Party Withdraws A Claim Or Defense Before Trial ............ 6 
`Altria And PMP Fail To Show Any Prejudice To Justify Denying
`Dismissal Under Either Rule 15 Or Rule 41 ........................................................ 10 
`Reynolds Has Not Acted In Bad Faith Either In Asserting Inequitable
`Conduct And Its Affirmative Defenses Or In Seeking To Dismiss Them .......... 15 
`RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS’ CROSS-
`MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS ......................................................... 18 
`A.
`Altria/PMP Is Not Entitled To Fees Under Rule 41 ............................................ 19 
`B.
`Altria/PMP Is Not Entitled To Fees Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 ............................. 21 
`C.
`Altria/PMP Is Not Entitled To Fees Under The Court’s Inherent Authority ....... 24 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 26 
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`-i-
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 3 of 35 PageID# 20934
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`
`Aero Prods. Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp.,
`No. 02 C 2590, 2004 WL 417193 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2004) ......................................................1
`
`AeroTech, Inc. v. Estes,
`110 F.3d 1523 (10th Cir. 1997) ...............................................................................................19
`
`Akira Techs., Inc. v. Conceptant, Inc.,
`No. 1:17-cv-412, 2018 WL 10467491 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2018) ........................................9, 13
`
`Ali v. J H&A LLC,
`No. H-18-0739, 2018 WL 6413152 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2018) ................................................16
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Andes v. Versant Corp.,
`788 F.2d 1033 (4th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................13
`
`Arcaro v. City of Anoka,
`No. 13-cv-2772, 2014 WL 12605450 (D. Minn. Mar. 11, 2014) ............................................12
`
`Bearer v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`No. 19-5415, 2021 WL 1339948 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2021) .......................................................16
`
`Briggs v. City of Norfolk,
`42 F. App’x 585 (4th Cir. 2002) ..............................................................................................18
`
`Civix-DDI, LLC v. Cellco P’ship,
`387 F. Supp. 2d 869 (N.D. Ill. 2005) .........................................................................................7
`
`Custer v. Pan Am. Life Ins. Co.,
`12 F.3d 410 (4th Cir. 1993) .......................................................................................................8
`
`EEOC v. Great Steaks, Inc.,
`667 F.3d 510 (4th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................21, 24
`
`Egan v. Singer,
`No. 14-00177 SOM/BM, 2014 WL 4230879 (D. Haw. Aug. 27, 2014) .................................14
`
`-ii-
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 4 of 35 PageID# 20935
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Ellett Bros., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co.,
`275 F.3d 384 (4th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Galustian v. Peter,
`591 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Greene v. Ab Coaster Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-38, 2012 WL 2342927 (S.D. Ohio June 20, 2012) ..............................................12
`
`Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc.,
`170 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................15
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) ...............................................................................................................1
`
`Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
`403 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc.,
`468 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................9
`
`InternMatch, Inc. v. Nxtbigthing, LLC,
`No. 14-cv-05438-JST, 2016 WL 540812 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2016) ......................................20
`
`Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co.,
`785 F.2d 503 (4th Cir. 1986) ...................................................................................................18
`
`Kinlaw v. Nwaokocha,
`No. 3:17-cv-772, 2019 WL 3268834 (E.D. Va. July 19, 2019) ...............................................13
`
`Laber v. Harvey,
`438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................................11
`
`LaFleur v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-00363, 2014 WL 37662 (E.D. Va. Jan. 3, 2014) ...........................................17, 25
`
`Malibu Media, LLC v. Baiazid,
`152 F. Supp. 3d 496 (E.D. Va. 2015) ......................................................................................21
`
`Mechmetals Corp. v. Telex Computer Prods., Inc.,
`709 F.2d 1287 (9th Cir. 1983) .................................................................................................11
`
`-iii-
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 5 of 35 PageID# 20936
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Mediavation, Inc. v. Rodgers,
`No. 6:08-cv-1903-Orl-19KRS, 2009 WL 2766419 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2009) ......................14
`
`Miller v. Terramite Corp.,
`114 F. App’x 536 (4th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................10
`
`Mitsubishi Heavy Indus. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`No. 6:10-cv-812-Orl-28KRS, 2012 WL 4336208 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2012) ..........................9
`
`Mulugeta v. Ademachew,
`No. 1:17-cv-649, 2019 WL 7945712 (E.D. Va. Nov. 6, 2019) ...................................18, 19, 25
`
`Naden v. Saga Software, Inc.,
`11 F. App’x 381 (4th Cir. 2001) ..............................................................................................12
`
`Nat’l Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Comcast Satellite Commc’ns, Inc.,
`No. CIV. H-00-261, 2000 WL 1717304 (D. Md. Nov. 15, 2000) .....................................19, 20
`
`Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc.,
`203 F.3d 782 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................11
`
`Roger Kennedy Constr., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co.,
`No. 6:06-cv-1075-Orl-19KRS, 2007 WL 9723176 (M.D. Fla. June 21, 2007).......................17
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Rambus Inc.,
`439 F. Supp. 2d 524 (E.D. Va. 2006), vacated on other grounds, 523 F.3d
`1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...............................................................................................................24
`
`Six v. Generations Fed. Credit Union,
`891 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................25
`
`Skinner v. First Am. Bank,
`64 F.3d 659 (4th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) .....................................................................10, 11, 12
`
`StorageCraft Tech. Corp. v. Persistent Telecom Sols., Inc.,
`No. 2:14-CV-76-DAK, 2016 WL 3435189 (D. Utah June 17, 2016) .....................................16
`
`Stradtman v. Republic Servs., Inc.,
`121 F. Supp. 3d 578 (E.D. Va. 2015) .............................................................................. passim
`
`-iv-
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 6 of 35 PageID# 20937
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Strag v. Board of Trs.,
`55 F.3d 943 (4th Cir. 1995) .....................................................................................................25
`
`Stretchline Intellectual Props. Ltd. v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz LP,
`No. 2:10-cv-371, 2015 WL 789185 (E.D. Va. Feb. 24, 2015) ................................................24
`
`SunTrust Banks, Inc. v. Robertson,
`No. 2:09cv197, 2010 WL 11569432 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2010) .................................................21
`
`Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Arthur Collins, Inc.,
`454 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Tex. 2006) ......................................................................................6
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc) ..................................................................................9
`
`TMM Data, LLC v. Braganza,
`No. 5:14-CV-729-FL, 2016 WL 1228595 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2016) .....................................12
`
`United States ex rel. Nathan v. Takeda Pharm. N. Am., Inc.,
`707 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................15
`
`United States v. Cantu,
`No. 13 Civ. 8803 (AT), 2021 WL 2167518 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2021) ...................................13
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-04134-VC, 2017 WL 1175379 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) .......................................9
`
`Visual Mining, Inc. v. Ziegler,
`No. PWG-12-3227, 2014 WL 690905 (D. Md. Feb. 21, 2014) ...............................................19
`
`Watterson v. Fritcher,
`No. 1:17-cv-01020-DAD-JLT, 2018 WL 5880776 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2018) .........................12
`
`Wesco Ins. Co. v. Smart Indus.,
`No. 2:16-CV-1206 JCM (EJY), 2021 WL 246087 (D. Nev. Jan. 25, 2021) ...........................17
`
`Wilkins v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`320 F.R.D. 125 (E.D. Va. 2017) ..............................................................................................15
`
`Williams v. ABM Parking Servs. Inc.,
`296 F. Supp. 3d 779 (E.D. Va. 2017) ........................................................................................6
`
`-v-
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 7 of 35 PageID# 20938
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Wizards of the Coast LLC v. Cryptozoic Ent. LLC,
`309 F.R.D. 645 (W.D. Wash. 2015) ..................................................................................15, 16
`
`Zhejiang Shenghui Lighting Co. v. TVL Int’l, LLC,
`No. 3:19-CV-00497-RJC-DCK, 2021 WL 926537 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2021) ........................11
`
`Zimmer Tech., Inc. v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.,
`453 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (N.D. Ind. 2006) .....................................................................................7
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1927 .................................................................................................................... passim
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 ...............................................................................................................................2
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 .............................................................................................................................1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 .............................................................................................................................8
`
`-vi-
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 8 of 35 PageID# 20939
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`After insisting on entry of a stipulated judgment replete with improper recitals, Altria and
`
`PMP now concede that entry of a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(a) would be
`
`inappropriate. Dkt. 763 at 12. Instead, they request that the Court enter summary judgment on
`
`the claim and defenses that Reynolds has withdrawn, and for which it offered a stipulated
`
`dismissal. PMP and Altria’s request is contrary to their own argument that it would be improper
`
`for the Court to grant summary judgment on the numerous claims they have chosen not to pursue—
`
`for example, literal infringement of the ’911 patent by the VUSE Solo G1, Vibe, and Ciro products,
`
`Dkt. 733 at 17, and willful infringement of the ’374 and ’556 patents, id. at 25. Altria and PMP
`
`tout the seriousness of the inequitable conduction allegation, but the accusation that a party
`
`willfully copied and infringed another’s patent is no less serious a charge. See Aero Prods. Int’l,
`
`Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., No. 02 C 2590, 2004 WL 417193, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2004)
`
`(“Entering findings of copying and willful infringement are serious sanctions.”); see also Halo
`
`Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1932 (2016) (describing “the ‘wanton and
`
`malicious pirate’ who intentionally infringes another’s patent—with no doubts about its validity
`
`or any notion of a defense—for no purpose other than to steal the patentee’s business”). If a party
`
`may voluntarily drop a claim for willful infringement without court intervention, as Altria and
`
`PMP believe, then the same must be true for a claim of inequitable conduct.
`
`Withdrawing a handful of claims and defenses shortly after the close of discovery is a
`
`simple and routine matter that happens every day in courts across the country. Adopting Altria
`
`and PMP’s contention that they are entitled to summary judgment (and an award of fees) for the
`
`simple act of withdrawing a claim would create perverse incentives for litigants to maintain their
`
`claims, rather than narrowing them for trial. That is inconsistent with the very first rule of civil
`
`procedure, which provides that all of the rules “should be construed, administered, and employed
`1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 9 of 35 PageID# 20940
`
`
`
`by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
`
`action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The just and efficient disposition here is to grant leave
`
`for Reynolds to dismiss with prejudice the inequitable conduct claim and the affirmative defenses
`
`identified in its motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 41. Alternatively, the Court
`
`may note in its order on summary judgment the claims that both Altria/PMP and Reynolds have
`
`withdrawn and thus are no longer at issue in the case.
`
`Accompanying Altria/PMP’s opposition is a motion for attorney fees and costs related to
`
`Reynolds’s inequitable conduct counterclaim and affirmative defense. No such fees could possibly
`
`be justified in the context of this case, as demonstrated by Altria/PMP’s barebones argument.
`
`Though Altria/PMP briefly invokes both Rule 41 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 as authority supporting an
`
`award of fees, it provides no argument for fees under either authority. And, indeed, Altria/PMP
`
`could not establish entitlement to fees under either Rule 41 or Section 1927 given the facts. Nor
`
`are fees justified under the Court’s inherent authority, both because that authority should be
`
`exercised only where rule and statutory authorities for fees are inadequate, which is not the case
`
`here, and because Reynolds has not engaged in the type of bad faith or oppressive conduct
`
`necessary to establish entitlement to fees. Altria/PMP’s motion should therefore be denied in
`
`whole.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`
`Reynolds Pleaded Inequitable Conduct In Good Faith
`
`On October 2, 2020, Reynolds filed a motion to amend its Answer to add a counterclaim
`
`for inequitable conduct. Dkt. 108. On the same day, Altria/PMP also filed a motion for leave to
`
`amend to add a claim of inequitable conduct. Dkt. 115. Far from being a “reflexive/retaliatory”
`
`filing in response to Altria/PMP’s inequitable conduct claim, Reynolds’s motion was supported
`
`
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 10 of 35 PageID# 20941
`
`by indisputable factual allegations.1 Dkt. 110. Specifically, as described in the motion for leave
`
`to amend, Reynolds had learned through its initial investigation that the Brooks ’874 and
`
`McCafferty ’148 patents were not disclosed as prior art in the application leading to Altria’s ’545
`
`patent.2 See id. at 2. The ’545 application did, however, disclose as prior art the Fleischhauer ’560
`
`patent, which itself cited Brooks and McCafferty. Because ’545 inventors Robert L. Ripley and
`
`Charles T. Higgins were also listed as inventors on Fleischhauer, Reynolds posited they were
`
`aware that Fleischhauer relied on Brooks and McCafferty as prior art—such that Brooks and
`
`McCafferty were also material to ’545—raising questions as to why they did not disclose those
`
`patents in their ’545 application. See id. The possibility that the ’545 inventors intentionally
`
`withheld material prior art references was sufficient to support an inequitable conduct claim.
`
`Indeed, this Court found as much when it granted Reynolds leave to amend to add the claim over
`
`Altria’s opposition. Dkt. 179. In short, rather than forfeit a colorable inequitable conduct claim
`
`by failing to raise it in a timely manner, Reynolds properly amended its complaint in order to
`
`further investigate the claim through discovery.
`
`B.
`
`Reynolds Conducted Discovery On The Inequitable Conduct Claim
`
`In order to support its inequitable conduct claim, Reynolds pursued discovery both before
`
`and after filing its motion for leave to amend. As noted in its motion, at that time Reynolds had
`
`already “served discovery requests on Counterclaim Plaintiffs seeking additional facts regarding
`
`1 In addition, though PMP makes much of the different lengths of the two inequitable conduct
`claims, that is a red herring. Reynolds does not dispute that its inequitable conduct claim is
`uncomplicated, and, of course, the length of a pleading is not an indication of its merit.
`2 Philip Morris USA, Inc. is the owner of the ’545 patent. Dkt. 39 ¶ 13. Altria Client Services,
`LLC sued together with Philip Morris USA on the ’545 patent. Id. ¶¶ 17-27. Reynolds uses the
`term “Altria” to refer to those parties, which are in the Altria Group corporate family. Reynolds
`uses the term “PMP” to refer to defendant Philip Morris Products, S.A., which is in the separate
`corporate family of Philip Morris International.
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 11 of 35 PageID# 20942
`
`the prosecution of the ’545 patent, the failure to disclose Brooks and McCafferty to the Patent
`
`Office, and Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ mental state regarding the same.” See Dkt. 110 at 4; see also
`
`e.g. Ex. O (Reynolds’s Requests for Admission Nos. 27-34). Following the Court’s grant of its
`
`motion for leave to amend, Reynolds continued to pursue proportionate discovery in support of
`
`that claim. Specifically, on March 3, 2021, Reynolds requested deposition dates for the two
`
`inventors who were the subject of that claim, Mr. Ripley and Mr. Higgins, as well as Mr.
`
`Fleischhauer. Ex. P.
`
`On March 15, 2021, Reynolds deposed Mr. Ripley on a variety of issues relevant to this
`
`matter, including
`
` See, e.g., Ex. Q at 42, 77-79, 132-33. Reynolds also deposed
`
`Mr. Fleischhauer about his patent and
`
` See, e.g., Ex. R at 36-47. Reynolds similarly requested that Altria/PMP make
`
`Mr. Higgins available for deposition on various issues related to the ’545 patent. Ex. P. Counsel
`
`for Altria/PMP advised that Mr. Higgins
`
` Ex. S.
`
`Reynolds’s counsel requested that Altria/PMP advise Reynolds if
`
` Ex. T. Mr. Higgins was not
`
`made available for deposition prior to the dispositive motions deadline.
`
`C.
`
`As A Strategic Matter, Reynolds Narrowed Its Claims And Provided Timely
`Notice To Altria/PMP
`
`Based on information revealed during discovery, and Reynolds’s inability to obtain crucial
`
`intent evidence to support its inequitable conduct claim, Reynolds chose to narrow its claims. As
`
`to the ’545 patent, Reynolds has chosen to focus on what it perceives to be its strongest claim—
`
`invalidity based on the Fleischauer ’560 patent. Nevertheless, the core facts supporting Reynolds’s
`
`inequitable conduct claim were not controverted by discovery. Indeed, to support his invalidity
`
`4
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 12 of 35 PageID# 20943
`
`opinion as to the ’545 patent, Reynolds’s expert relies on Brooks and McCafferty as material prior
`
`art in finding the asserted claims of the ’545 patent invalid as obvious. See, e.g., Ex. U at 13-14
`
`Discovery in this matter closed on April 19, 2021, and expert depositions—including as to
`
`the ’545 patent—were conducted through May 14, 2021, leaving less than three weeks between
`
`the conclusion of fact gathering and the June 2, 2021 dispositive motions deadline. The question
`
`of Mr. Higgins’s availability was outstanding during this period. Nevertheless, in mid-May the
`
`parties began to discuss the narrowing of claims following discovery. On May 14, 2021, counsel
`
`for Altria/PMP inquired whether Reynolds intended to drop four affirmative defenses and advised
`
`that Altria/PMP “intend[ed] to seek summary judgment on the affirmative defenses identified” if
`
`Reynolds did not agree to withdraw them. Dkt. 763-2. From this communication, Reynolds
`
`understood that Altria/PMP was not filing for summary judgment as to Reynolds’s inequitable
`
`conduct counterclaim.3 As requested by Altria/PMP counsel, Reynolds responded on May 18,
`
`2021, advising that it was considering Altria/PMP’s request as to the affirmative defenses. See
`
`Dkt. 763-3. In the same email, Reynolds requested that Altria/PMP also identify any claims it
`
`intended to drop. Id. Altria/PMP did not respond to this request.
`
`The next communication between the parties on the issue of narrowing claims occurred on
`
`the afternoon of June 1, 2021. See Dkt. 720-3. At 4:16 pm, counsel for Altria/PMP asked, for the
`
`3 Reynolds’s understanding was supported by the fact that the shifting emphasis of Reynolds’s
`case was obvious to Altria/PMP. For example, as noted by Altria/PMP in their opposition,
`Reynolds’s expert reports did not include opinions as to inequitable conduct. See Dkt. 763 at 4.
`Based on Altria/PMP’s own reasoning as set out in its summary judgment papers, Altria/PMP’s
`awareness of this fact obligated it to pursue a meet and confer with Reynolds to determine whether
`Reynolds was pursuing the claim. See Dkt 733 at 18 (“RJR has indisputably known throughout
`expert discovery that PMP/Altria is not pursuing literal infringement of the ’911 patent for these
`three products. Yet RJR failed to meet and confer with PMP/Altria on this issue before moving (as
`it failed to confer on numerous issues) and its motion needlessly imposes on judicial resources.”).
`As explained below, Reynolds acquiesced in Altria/PMP’s request to withdraw the inequitable
`conduct claim within hours of the issue being raised for the first time.
`
`5
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 13 of 35 PageID# 20944
`
`first time, “whether Reynolds will withdraw its claim of inequitable conduct on the ’545 patent,”
`
`and advised that “[i]f Reynolds does not agree, we intend to seek summary judgment.” Id. Counsel
`
`for Altria/PMP also inquired into the status of Reynolds’s affirmative defenses previously
`
`discussed in the May 2021 correspondence. Id. Reynolds responded within hours by stating
`
`unequivocally that “Reynolds confirms it will not pursue a claim of inequitable conduct on the ’545
`
`patent,” and by identifying the affirmative defenses it would not be pursuing. Dkt. 720-4.4
`
`Reynolds also requested that Altria/PMP similarly identify claims it would not be pursuing. Id.5
`
`As set forth in Reynolds’s opening motion, the parties were unable to amicably resolve the
`
`dismissal of the inequitable conduct claim and the affirmative defenses because Altria/PMP
`
`insisted on a judgment including inaccurate characterizations of the merit of the claims, rather than
`
`a standard order of dismissal. See Dkt. 720 at 3.
`
`III.
`
`REPLY ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`A.
`
`Dismissal, Rather Than Summary Judgment, Is The Appropriate Disposition
`When A Party Withdraws A Claim Or Defense Before Trial
`
`As this Court and numerous others have recognized, the withdrawal of a claim or defense
`
`moots the issue—thus precluding summary judgment, not justifying it. See, e.g., Williams v. ABM
`
`Parking Servs. Inc., 296 F. Supp. 3d 779, 783-84 (E.D. Va. 2017) (“plaintiff’s motion for summary
`
`judgment on this issue is moot and must therefore be denied”); Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Arthur Collins,
`
`Inc., 454 F. Supp. 2d 600, 606 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (“dismiss[ing] these claims as withdrawn” where
`
`nonmovant stated in summary judgment response “that it is not asserting infringement by this class
`
`4 Note that, though PMP characterizes Reynolds’s June 1 email as a last-minute offer to withdraw
`a claim, Reynolds’s email was in fact sent in response to PMP’s request that Reynolds withdraw
`its inequitable conduct claim, and acquiesced in PMP’s request.
`5 Counsel for PMP declined to identify any claims it would not be pursuing, stating, “Now is not
`the appropriate time for Counterclaim‐plaintiffs to evaluate further narrowing the case for trial
`based on dropping existing asserted claims.” Dkt. 720-7.
`
`6
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 14 of 35 PageID# 20945
`
`of devices” and the movant “nonetheless insist[ed] that it is entitled to summary judgment of non-
`
`infringement”); Zimmer Tech., Inc. v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 453 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1043
`
`(N.D. Ind. 2006) (granting summary judgment on withdrawn invalidity defenses would be
`
`“inappropriate because such would merely be an academic exercise resulting in an advisory
`
`opinion” where “the appropriate response is to deny these issues as moot”); Civix-DDI, LLC v.
`
`Cellco P’ship, 387 F. Supp. 2d 869, 881 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (“Expedia is not entitled to summary
`
`judgment on claims that are not part of this dispute.”). Indeed, the court in Civix observed that “it
`
`would be inequitable for Expedia to encourage Civix to narrow its asserted claims, and then later
`
`seek summary judgment on those same dropped claims.” Id.
`
`That is precisely what happened here. Although the parties first broached the topic of
`
`narrowing the issues for summary judgment on May 14, it was not until June 1—the day before
`
`summary judgment motions were due—that Altria and PMP for the first time advised Reynolds
`
`that it intended to seek summary judgment on Reynolds’s inequitable conduct claim and requested
`
`that Reynolds withdraw it. Reynolds responded the same day that it would not pursue that claim.
`
`As in Civix, it is “inequitable” for Altria and PMP to solicit Reynolds’s assurance that it was not
`
`pursuing the inequitable conduct claim and then move for summary judgment when they received
`
`that assurance. These facts belie Altria and PMP’s assertion (Dkt. 763 at 9) that Reynolds “never
`
`responded to PMP/Altria’s attempt to narrow the issues for dispositive briefing weeks before on
`
`May 14, 2021”—rather, Altria and PMP did not raise moving for summary judgment on the
`
`inequitable conduct claim until June 1—and that “the only reason for RJR’s late offer was to ensure
`
`it was made after PMP/Altria incurred the substantial cost of briefing summary judgment”—in
`
`fact, Reynolds’s offer was made the same day that Altria and PMP first informed Reynolds that
`
`they would seek summary judgment on the counterclaim.
`
`7
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 15 of 35 PageID# 20946
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 15 of 35 Page|D# 20946
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Had it not been for Reynolds’s withdrawal of the inequitable conduct claim and affirmative
`
`defenses, Altria and PMP would not be “entitled to judgment as a matter of law” because they
`
`have not “show[n] that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact” as required under Rule
`
`56(a). See Custer v. Pan Am. Life Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 410, 416 (4th Cir. 1993) (even if a motion is
`
`unopposed, court must still determine that “the uncontroverted facts entitle the party to ‘a judgment
`
`as a matter of law’”). Altria and PMP argue that Reynolds “has admitted all 45 materialfacts and
`
`has not disputed any of the law demonstrating that PMP/Altria is entitled to judgment of no
`
`inequitable conduct.” Dkt. 763 at 13. To begin with, Reynolds had no obligation to respond to
`
`Altria and PMP’s statement of facts on claims and defenses that it was withdrawing from the case,
`
`nor did it wish to burden the Court with additional pages of briefing devoted to absolutely
`
`irrelevant factual assertions. Moreover, the “material facts” Altria and PMP cited were primarily
`
`not summary judgment facts, as Reynolds made clear in its response. Dkt. 735 at l n]. They
`
`were not facts related to “issues to be decided by the Court or a jury,” id, but rather statements of
`
`the parties’ positions and procedural facts about the prosecution of the ’545 patent and the course
`
`of discovery in the case. Dkt. 694 at 2—9.‘5
`
`Most significantly, Altria and PMP statements of fact, even if accepted, do not resolve the
`
`issues of fact as to the materiality of the two pieces ofprior art, the Brooks and McCafferty patents,
`
`or the intent of the ’545 inventors, Mr. Higgins and Mr. Ripley. Questions of intent “can rarely[ ]
`
`6 For example, fact one is that “The ’545 Patent issued on October 12, 2004 from the ’639
`Application,” and fact nine concludes “The ’639 Application issued as the ’545 Patent on
`October 12, 2004.” Dkt. 694 at 2-3. Fact sixteen is that “RJR alleges inequitable conduct against
`two individuals: ’545 Patent named inventors Mr. Ri 1e and Mr. Hi
`ins ” and fact seventeen is
`
`that
`
`
`
`at 4. There is nothing to dispute in facts of this nature—the ’545 patent application proceeded as
`described; Reynolds did in fact plead a claim of inequitable conduct; and Mr. Ripley testified as
`laid out by Altria/PMP.
`
`Dkt. 694
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 777 Filed 07/06/21 Page 16 of 35 PageID# 20947
`
`be proven by direct evidence. Rather, intent to deceive is generally inferred from the facts and
`
`circumstances surrounding the applicant’s overall conduct.” Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharm.
`
`Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649
`
`F.3d 1276, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc). “The question is not whether [Reynolds’s]
`
`circumstantial evidence requires an inference