Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 1 of 22 PageID# 21133
`
`
`
`REYNOLDS’S MOTION: ’911 PATENT
`
`
`
`
`
`REYNOLDS’S MOTION: ’911 PATENT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 2 of 22 PageID# 21134
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY OF CLAIM 1 OF THE ’911 PATENT
`
`Reynolds’s MSJ Ex. J (emphases reflecting amendments from
`Jan. 6, 2016; July 29, 2016; Oct. 6, 2016; and May 10, 2018)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 3 of 22 PageID# 21135
`
`VUSE ALTO: TWO “RAISED LIPS”
`
`• Defendant’s expert says that the Alto satisfies the
`claim 1 limitation “wherein the at least one cavity is
`a blind hole” because the Alto mouthpiece has two
`spaces “bounded by a raised lip on one side and
`the wall of the cartomizer holder tap on the other.”
`
`• Defendant’s expert admits that the raised lips “do
`not extend all the way around the air outlet hole”
`and that they “are not enclosed on every side.”
`
`RJR EDVA_001651203; Abraham Dep. 137, 142.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 4 of 22 PageID# 21136
`
`VUSE ALTO: ROSE PRIOR ART
`
`The Examiner rejected the pending independent claim as being
`unpatenable over Taieb in view of Rose: “Rose teaches an apparatus
`comprising a leakage prevention means comprises at least one cavity in a
`wall (62) of the aerosol-form chamber (64) for the purpose of collecting
`liquid condensate . . .”
`
`DEF PUB_EDVA000016067; Figure 5 “Rose” (Ex. R)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 5 of 22 PageID# 21137
`
`VUSE ALTO: PMP’S RESPONSE
`
`• PMP amended the claim to add the “blind hole” limitation.
`
`• PMP repeatedly argued that the claimed “blind hole” limitation
`distinguished Rose because the Rose fingers are “open around the
`sides of each finger— meaning that such features are non blind.”
`
`DEF PUB_EDVA000016091
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 6 of 22 PageID# 21138
`
`VUSE ALTO: CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE DISCLAIMER #1
`
`DEF PUB_EDVA000016098 (July 2016)
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 7 of 22 PageID# 21139
`
`VUSE ALTO: CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE DISCLAIMER #2
`
`DEF PUB_EDVA000016122 (August 2016)
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 8 of 22 PageID# 21140
`
`VUSE ALTO: CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE DISCLAIMER #3
`
`DEF PUB_EDVA000016129 (October 2016)
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 9 of 22 PageID# 21141
`
`VUSE ALTO: TWO “RAISED LIPS”
`
`• Defendant’s expert says that the Alto satisfies the
`claim 1 limitation “wherein the at least one cavity is
`a blind hole” because the Alto mouthpiece has two
`spaces “bounded by a raised lip on one side and
`the wall of the cartomizer holder tap on the other.”
`
`• Defendant’s expert admits that the raised lips “do
`not extend all the way around the air outlet hole”
`and that they “are not enclosed on every side.”
`
`RJR EDVA_001651203; Abraham Dep. 137, 142.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 10 of 22 PageID# 21142
`
`VUSE ALTO: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Doc. 729-4 (Ex. 6)
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 11 of 22 PageID# 21143
`
`VUSE ALTO: LARGEST CROSS-SECTIONAL DIMENSION
`
`Reynolds’s MSJ Ex. J (emphases reflecting amendments from
`Jan. 6, 2016; July 29, 2016; Oct. 6, 2016; and May 10, 2018)
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 12 of 22 PageID# 21144
`
`VUSE ALTO: LARGEST CROSS-SECTIONAL DIMENSION
`
`Kodama Supp. & Am. Responsive Expert Rep. at ¶ 88
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 13 of 22 PageID# 21145
`
`VUSE SOLO (G1), VIBE, CIRO
`
`• No literal infringement because the alleged cavities are all outside the
`claimed range 0.5 mm to 1 mm.
`
`• No DOE infringement because PMP made two amendments that
`narrowed the claim to the specified range:
`
`• PMP amended claim to delete “preferably” to overcome
`“indefinite” objection from the Examiner.
`• PMP amended claim to add “largest” to overcome objection that
`the claim was “obvious” over prior art (Thorens, in view of Miller).
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 14 of 22 PageID# 21146
`
`VUSE SOLO (G1), VIBE, CIRO: MILLER PRIOR ART
`
`DEF PUB_EDVA000016313; Miller Figure 1 (annotated)
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 15 of 22 PageID# 21147
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 15 of 22 PagelD# 21147
`
`VUSE SOLO (G1), VIBE, CIRO: MILLER PRIOR ART
`
`VUSE SOLO(G1), VIBE, CIRO: MILLER PRIOR ART
`
`For example, as can be seen from Miller's drawings, the lower extension 2?15
`
`significantly wider and higher than the smoke conducting passage 13 from the bow! {2.
`
`Miller describes the diameter of the smoke conducting passage 18 as “between 3 and 5 om.”
`
`
`
`See Miller, col. 3, 8. 42-43. Thus,Millerthelowerextension22hasdisclosesthatimplicitly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8cross-sectionaldimensionofsignificantlymorethan“between3andSmm.”For example,
`
`
`
`
`
`in Miller's Fig. 1, lower extension 22 appears to have a height of apprommiately twice that of
`
`the passage 18. This would put the heieht oflower extension 22 at around 6 mmm to 10 mm.
`DEF PUB_EDVA000016314
`15
`
`
`
`
`‘ThisisanorderofmagnitudegreaterApplicant'sclaimeddimensions.than
`
`
`DEF PUB_EDVA000016314
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 16 of 22 PageID# 21148
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 16 of 22 PagelD# 21148
`
`VUSE SOLO (G1), VIBE, CIRO: MILLER PRIOR ART
`
`VUSE SOLO(G1), VIBE, CIRO: MILLER PRIOR ART
`
`Even if the person of ordmaryshall bad conadered reducing the dimensions of
`
`
`
`
`
`Miller's lower estension 22,suchapersanwoulduothavelookedtoprovidethelower
`
`mm and | mm,” as claimed, since the high viscosity and surface tension of tar would prevent
`
`
`
`
`the tar from enteringsuchasmallcavity.Applicant'siargastcross-sectionalclaimedThus,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dimensionwouldfrustratetheentirepurposeofMiller'sextension22, which is to traplower
`
`DEF PUB_EDVA000016315
`tar condensate that has dipped from pin 24. Otherwise, to force such a change would mean
`
`16
`
`DEF PUB_EDVA000016315
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 17 of 22 PageID# 21149
`
`
`
`REYNOLDS’S MOTION: ’374 PATENT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 18 of 22 PageID# 21150
`
`DR. BLALOCK:
`PPS “CAN IN NO WAY BE CONSTRUED AS RIGID OR SEMI-RIGID”
`
`Reynolds’s MSJ Ex. F
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 19 of 22 PageID# 21151
`
`DR. BLALOCK:
`PPS “CAN IN NO WAY BE CONSTRUED AS RIGID OR SEMI-RIGID”
`
`Reynolds’s MSJ Ex. F at ¶ 293
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 20 of 22 PageID# 21152
`
`A TALE OF TWO DIFFERENT INVENTIONS
`
`’949 PCT Application:
`
`’374 Patent:
`
`“a rigid or semi-rigid conductive
`membrane (121), such as a metallic
`sheet”
`
`“a flexible and conductive
`membrane which is under lateral
`or radial tension”
`
`“a metallic sheet having a good axial
`resilience property is preferred to be
`used”
`
`“resilient metallic membrane” / “metallic
`membrane” / “resilient membrane”
`
`“metal, carbonized or metalized
`rubber, carbon or metal coated
`rubber, carbonized or metalized
`soft and resilient materials such as
`a PPS (Polyphenylene Sulfide), or
`carbon or metal coated soft and
`resilient plastic materials”
`
`Reynolds’s MSJ Ex. A, Ex. D
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 21 of 22 PageID# 21153
`
`ALTRIA’S MOTION: °374 PATENT
`
`ALTRIA’S MOTION: ’374 PATENT
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 795-1 Filed 07/16/21 Page 22 of 22 PageID# 21154
`
`ALTRIA DELAYS DISCLOSURE
`
`Dec. 4, 2020 Reynolds produces
`translation of CN ’667.
`
`Feb. 20, 2021 Reynolds serves
`contentions relying on CN ’667 as prior
`art, identifying 35 USC 102(a).
`
`Feb. 23, 2021 Altria challenges prior
`art status of other ’374 prior art
`references, but not CN ’667.
`
`Feb. 24, 2021 Reynolds serves Blalock
`expert report, relying on CN ’667.
`
`Reynolds’s Opp. to Altria MSJ, Exs. L-S
`
`Mar. 24, 2021 Altria serves 373-page
`McAlexander expert report, one
`sentence of which says without support:
`“The inventor of [CN ’667] is the same
`inventor as the ’374 Patent.”
`
`Apr. 12, 2021 Fact discovery closes.
`
`May 10, 2021 Altria challenges prior art
`status, Reynolds’s translation of CN
`’667.
`
`May 20, 2021 Altria produces Liu
`declaration and translation of CN ’667.
`
`22
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
