Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 15 PageID# 22142
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`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.
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`REDACTED
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REYNOLDS’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 4 AND
`5 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT REGARDING ANY REQUEST FOR,
`OR ALLEGED ENTITLEMENT TO, ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION, ENHANCED
`DAMAGES, OR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 15 PageID# 22143
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 3
`I.
`ANY ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE RELATED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
`AND ANY REQUEST FOR, OR ALLEGED ENTITLEMENT TO, ISSUANCE
`OF AN INJUNCTION SHOULD BE EXCLUDED (MOTION IN LIMINE
`NO. 4) ................................................................................................................................ 3
`A.
`All Proceedings Related To PMP’s Request For Injunctive Relief Remain
`Stayed ..................................................................................................................... 4
`Injunctive Relief Is An Issue For The Court .......................................................... 5
`B.
`ANY ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE RELATED TO ANY REQUEST FOR, OR
`ALLEGED ENTITLEMENT TO, AN AWARD OF ENHANCED DAMAGES
`OR ATTORNEYS’ FEES OR COSTS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED (MOTION IN
`LIMINE NO. 5) .................................................................................................................. 6
`A.
`Enhanced Damages Is An Issue For The Court ..................................................... 6
`B.
`Attorneys’ Fees Or Costs Is An Issue For The Court ............................................ 8
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 9
`
`II.
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 15 PageID# 22144
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`AIA Am., Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals,
`866 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................8
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`No. 1:10cv910, 2012 WL 12832376 (E.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2012) ................................................6
`
`Biedermann Techs. GmbH & Co. KG v. K2M, Inc.,
`528 F. Supp. 3d 407 (E.D. Va. 2021) ........................................................................................6
`
`CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corp.,
`No. 6:19-CV-00513-ADA, ECF No. 204 (W.D. TX. Nov. 8, 2021).........................................8
`
`Dexcowin Glob., Inc. v. Aribex, Inc.,
`No. CV 16-143-GW, 2017 WL 3478492 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017) ........................................6
`
`Elan Pharms., LLC v. Sexton,
`421 F. Supp. 3d 1119 (D. Kan. 2019) ........................................................................................8
`
`Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 15-542-JFB-SRF, 2019 WL 1100471 (D. Del. Mar. 7, 2019) ............................................6
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-00072-BLF, ECF No. 660 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2020) ..............................................8
`
`Luce v. United States,
`469 U.S. 38 (1984) .....................................................................................................................1
`
`MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc.,
`500 F. Supp. 2d 556 (E.D. Va. 2007) ........................................................................................5
`
`Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Snap-On Inc.,
`288 F. Supp. 3d 872 (E.D. Wis. 2017) .......................................................................................7
`
`Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp.,
`14 F. Supp. 2d 800 (E.D. Va. 1998) ..........................................................................................7
`
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.,
`875 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................7
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836 Filed 01/21/22 Page 4 of 15 PageID# 22145
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Rolls-Royce PLC v. United Techs. Corp.,
`No. 1:10cv457, 2011 WL 1740143 (E.D. Va. May 4, 2011).....................................................1
`
`Page
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:13-CV-447-JRG-KNM, 2015 WL 11089593 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2015) ........................6
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ............................................................................................................................3, 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 285 ............................................................................................................................3, 8
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 .....................................................................................................................5, 8, 9
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 .....................................................................................................................5, 8, 9
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 .....................................................................................................................6, 8, 9
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836 Filed 01/21/22 Page 5 of 15 PageID# 22146
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively,
`
`“Reynolds”) respectfully move the Court for an order excluding (1) all evidence and argument
`
`regarding any request for, or alleged entitlement to, an injunction, and (2) all evidence and
`
`argument regarding any request for, or alleged entitlement to, an award of enhanced damages or
`
`attorneys’ fees or costs. Because these issues are to be decided solely by the Court, and because
`
`all proceedings related to Philip Morris Products S.A.’s (“PMP”) claim for injunctive relief are
`
`held in abeyance, it would be improper and unfairly prejudicial for the jury to hear evidence or
`
`argument about them.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The Court’s authority to issue in limine orders comes from its “inherent authority to
`
`manage the course of trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984). Accordingly,
`
`preliminarily excluding evidence via in limine rulings is proper. See, e.g., Rolls-Royce PLC v.
`
`United Techs. Corp., No. 1:10cv457 (LMB/JFA), 2011 WL 1740143, at *2 (E.D. Va. May 4, 2011)
`
`(Brinkema, J.).
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Motion in Limine No. 4. Reynolds’s Motion in Limine No. 4 relates to PMP’s claim for
`
`injunctive relief. PMP added its claim for injunctive relief just weeks before the close of fact
`
`discovery. (Dkt. 483 [Order Granting Motion to Amend]; Dkt. 461 [Scheduling Order].) PMP
`
`seeks to permanently enjoin Reynolds from “using, making, importing, offering for sale and/or
`
`selling” its VUSE line of vaping products if they are determined to infringe the ’265, ’556, or ’911
`
`patents. (Dkt. 473, Ex. A at 83.) PMP’s claim for an injunction rests on the on the idea that PMP
`
`will be irreparably harmed if VUSE remains on the market, because the VUSE products will siphon
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836 Filed 01/21/22 Page 6 of 15 PageID# 22147
`
`
`away sales that otherwise would have gone to PMP’s products—IQOS and/or VEEV. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1 [PMP’s Supp. Resp. to Interrogatory No. 23], at 4, 13-15, 39-44.) There is no merit
`
`whatsoever to PMP’s claims, not the least of which because IQOS is banned from sale in the
`
`United States by order of the International Trade Commission and PMP has not even filed an
`
`application for FDA approval of VEEV (which has never been sold in this country). In short, there
`
`is not and cannot be any colorable argument that VUSE will improperly divert US sales that
`
`otherwise would have gone to two products that are not sold here. Regardless of the merits,
`
`however, PMP cannot introduce evidence about its injunction request before the jury.
`
`First and foremost, all proceedings relating to the injunction request remain stayed by order
`
`of the Court. On June 7, 2021, the Court ruled that all further proceedings on PMP’s claim for
`
`injunctive relief are held in abeyance. (Dkt. 702.) The Court explained that Administrative Law
`
`Judge Cheney’s initial determination in the parallel ITC proceedings “undercuts the irreparable
`
`harm undergirding PMP’s claim for injunctive relief.” Id. Judge Cheney, in his initial
`
`determination, found that PMP infringed the patents asserted by Reynolds in the ITC proceedings,
`
`that Reynolds’s patents are not invalid, and that a permanent “limited exclusion order barring entry
`
`of [IQOS and IQOS HeatSticks]” was justified. (See 5/14/2021 Initial Determination, attached as
`
`Exhibit 2, at 25-64, 99-100, 125-26, 131.) PMP’s case has only been further undermined since the
`
`Court entered its Order, as ALJ Cheney’s Initial Determination has now been upheld by the full
`
`Commission. The Commission, agreed with the finding that IQOS infringes Reynolds’s patents
`
`and agreed that a limited exclusion order barring importation and sale of IQOS in the US is an
`
`appropriate remedy for PMP’s violation. (See 10/19/2021 Commission Opinion, attached as
`
`Exhibit 3, at 40-43, 80.) The Commission even went further, denying any carve-out to the limited
`
`exclusion order for the continuing sale of IQOS HeatSticks. (Id. at 41-43.) The Presidential
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836 Filed 01/21/22 Page 7 of 15 PageID# 22148
`
`
`Review period expired on November 29, 2021, and the administration elected not to intervene.
`
`Thus the ITC’s exclusion order is now in full effect.
`
`Motion in Limine No. 5. Reynolds’s Motion in Limine No. 5 relates to Altria Client
`
`Services LLC (“ACS”), Philip Morris USA, Inc. (“PM USA”), and PMP’s (collectively,
`
`“PM/Altria”) claim for damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 as a result of Reynolds’s alleged
`
`willful infringement (Dkt. 473, Ex. A at 30, 43, 83), claim for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (Dkts. 761, 766 at 17-18, 804; see
`
`also July 16, 2021, Motions Hearing Tr. 13:18-14:9.)
`
`On December 10, 2021, the parties met and conferred regarding their proposed motion in
`
`limine topics, and Reynolds raised the topics of excluding evidence and argument regarding any
`
`request for, or alleged entitlement to, issuance of an injunction, enhanced damages, or attorneys’
`
`fees and costs. The parties were unable to reach a resolution on these issues.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`ANY ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE RELATED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND
`ANY REQUEST FOR, OR ALLEGED ENTITLEMENT TO, ISSUANCE OF AN
`INJUNCTION SHOULD BE EXCLUDED (MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4)
`
`The Court should enter an order barring PMP from introducing at trial any evidence or
`
`argument relating to its claim for injunctive relief. The Court already ruled on June 7, 2021, that
`
`further proceedings on that claim are held in abeyance. PMP has not asked the Court to reverse or
`
`lift its prior order; thus, the order continues in full effect and prohibits any effort PMP might make
`
`to bring these issues before the jury at trial.
`
`Even if all proceedings on the injunction request were not stayed, evidence and argument
`
`on these issues have no place before the jury. Because this issue is to be decided solely by the
`
`Court, it would be improper and unfairly prejudicial for the jury to hear evidence or argument
`
`about it.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836 Filed 01/21/22 Page 8 of 15 PageID# 22149
`
`
`
`
`
`All Proceedings Related To PMP’s Request For Injunctive Relief Remain Stayed.
`
`All proceedings related to PMP’s claim for injunctive relief have remained stayed since
`
`June 7, 2021. Accordingly, it would be improper for the jury to hear any evidence or argument
`
`related to PMP’s request for an injunction. In addition, allowing such argument or evidence would
`
`be particularly inappropriate in this case, given the state of the record. First, PMP’s entire claim
`
`for an injunction rests on supposed competitive impact that the accused products may have on
`
`IQOS and VEEV. As to IQOS, the Court already stated that “the irreparable harm undergirding
`
`PMP’s claim for injunctive relief” was “undercut[]” by the initial determination in the ITC
`
`proceedings. (Dkt. 702.) Since then, the Commission issued a Final Determination affirming
`
`Judge Cheney’s Initial Determination, and President Biden’s administration declined to intervene
`
`on PMP’s behalf. The ITC exclusion order is in full effect, and PMP is prohibited from importing
`
`IQOS and IQOS HeatSticks into the United States. As to VEEV,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. (Ex. 4 [Deposition of M. King, June
`
`25, 2021] at 12:10-18, 175:12-176:10, 176:16-17.) Moreover, PMP has stated publicly that it does
`
`not even plan to submit a PMTA for VEEV until the second half of 2022, meaning that the VEEV
`
`product is, at best, years away from marketing or sale in the United States. (Ex. 5 [Philip Morris
`
`International, Inc. Q3 2021 Earnings Call Transcript for the Period Ending September 30, 2021,
`
`available
`
`at
`
`https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2021/10/19/philip-morris-
`
`international-inc-pm-q3-2021-earning/] at 11.)
`
`Second, setting aside the fact that PMP’s injunction request is invalid on its face, Reynolds
`
`has not yet had the opportunity to develop a full record on the injunction issues, which will be
`
`necessary before any consideration of injunctive relief can be presented to the Court. Because of
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836 Filed 01/21/22 Page 9 of 15 PageID# 22150
`
`
`the Court’s earlier order holding further proceedings on the injunction request in abeyance, the
`
`parties have not yet engaged in expert discovery around these claims, for example. As a result,
`
`evidence and argument relating to injunctive relief is not only inappropriate to place before the
`
`jury for the reasons stated above and below, in any event, it is also not ripe. It would be unfairly
`
`prejudicial to allow PMP to present evidence or argument related to its claim for injunctive relief
`
`which remains stayed and when Reynolds has not yet had a full and fair opportunity to complete
`
`the record as to why injunctive relief should not be allowed here.
`
`
`
`Injunctive Relief Is An Issue For The Court.
`
`Even if PMP’s claim for injunctive relief were not stayed, whether to issue injunctive relief,
`
`and to what extent, is an equitable issue solely within the discretion of the Court—not the jury.
`
`See MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 500 F. Supp. 2d 556, 568 (E.D. Va. 2007) (noting that the
`
`“court” determines whether an injunction should issue) (emphasis added). Moreover, a court need
`
`not even consider whether a permanent injunction is appropriate unless and until the jury issues a
`
`verdict finding infringement. See id. Any evidence or argument regarding PMP’s request for
`
`injunctive relief is not relevant for trial, as it has no “tendency to make a fact more or less probable
`
`than it would be without the evidence,” as the determination is one for the court and not for the
`
`jury. Fed. R. Evid. 401(a). Because any evidence or argument regarding PMP’s request for
`
`injunctive relief is not relevant to any issue for the jury to decide, it is inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid.
`
`402. Even if any evidence or argument regarding PMP’s claim for an injunction were relevant (it
`
`is not), any probative value is “substantially outweighed” by the danger of “unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, [and] misleading the jury” because such evidence presumes infringement that
`
`the jury will have not yet found. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Moreover, “[a]ll … proceedings” related to
`
`PMP’s claim for injunctive relief remain “held in abeyance” until further order from the Court.
`
`(Dkt. 702.)
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836 Filed 01/21/22 Page 10 of 15 PageID# 22151
`
`
`
`Therefore, any evidence or argument regarding PMP’s request for injunctive relief should
`
`be excluded, and PMP’s request for injunctive relief, or alleged entitlement to such relief, should
`
`not be mentioned in front of or presented to the jury. See Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom,
`
`Inc., No. 1:10cv910 (LMB/TRJ), 2012 WL 12832376, at *1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2012) (Brinkema,
`
`J.) (“This Court does not use juries as advisors. Whether injunctive relief is appropriate should
`
`plaintiff prevail, will be determined solely by the Court.”); see also Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple
`
`Inc., No. 15-542-JFB-SRF, 2019 WL 1100471, at *6 (D. Del. Mar. 7, 2019) (excluding evidence
`
`that patentee sought injunctive relief); Dexcowin Glob., Inc. v. Aribex, Inc., No. CV 16-143-GW
`
`(AGRx), 2017 WL 3478492, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017) (“Aribex’s only argument [as to
`
`admissibility] is that this is relevant to injunctive relief, which isn’t a question for the jury.”);
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:13-CV-447-JRG-KNM, 2015 WL 11089593, at *2 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Jan. 29, 2015) (granting motion in limine to exclude “[a]ny argument, evidence, testimony, or
`
`reference to issues [from the jury] to be decided by the Court, such as … injunction/post-trial
`
`damages.”).
`
`II.
`
`ANY ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE RELATED TO ANY REQUEST FOR, OR
`ALLEGED ENTITLEMENT TO, AN AWARD OF ENHANCED DAMAGES OR
`ATTORNEYS’ FEES OR COSTS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED (MOTION IN
`LIMINE NO. 5)
`
` Enhanced Damages Is An Issue For The Court.
`
`The question of enhanced damages is an issue for the Court, not for the jury. Section 284
`
`of Title 35 of the United States Code provides that “the court may increase the damages up to three
`
`times the amount found or assessed.” 35 U.S.C. § 284 (emphasis added). See Biedermann Techs.
`
`GmbH & Co. KG v. K2M, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 3d 407, 431 (E.D. Va. 2021) (Davis, Chief J.)
`
`(“Should the jury find intentional infringement of such patent, this Court will determine whether
`
`enhanced damages are appropriate . . . .”); Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 14 F. Supp. 2d
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836 Filed 01/21/22 Page 11 of 15 PageID# 22152
`
`
`800, 801 (E.D. Va. 1998) (Ellis, J.) (addressing and denying request for enhanced damages
`
`following a jury’s verdict of willful literal infringement); Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Snap-On
`
`Inc., 288 F. Supp. 3d 872, 898 (E.D. Wis. 2017) (“Whether to award enhanced damages and the
`
`amount of any enhancement are committed to the discretion of the trial court.”).
`
`The Federal Circuit Bar Association’s Model Patent Jury Instructions affirm that no
`
`evidence or argument related to enhanced damages should be presented to the jury. The
`
`Preliminary Instructions state: “You will also need to make a finding as to whether the
`
`infringement was willful. If you decide that any infringement was willful, that decision should not
`
`affect any damages award you give. I will take willfulness into account later.” (Ex. 6 [Federal
`
`Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions] at 4, 35; see also Ex. 7 [AIPLA Model
`
`Instructions] at 54-55 (“If you determine that any infringement was willful, you may not allow that
`
`decision to affect the amount of any damages award you give for infringement.”).)
`
`Moreover, a jury verdict finding willful infringement does not mandate that damages be
`
`enhanced. To the contrary, “[e]nhanced damages are generally only appropriate in egregious cases
`
`of misconduct, such as willful, wanton, or malicious behavior,” so “an award of enhanced damages
`
`does not necessarily flow from a willfulness finding.” Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech.
`
`Ceramics Corp., 875 F.3d 1369, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Besides being irrelevant, presenting
`
`argument or evidence, or even mentioning the possibility of enhanced damages, to the jury would
`
`unnecessarily confuse the issues and unfairly prejudice Reynolds because even a finding of willful
`
`infringement does not dictate the appropriateness of enhanced damages, which are solely within
`
`the Court’s discretion.
`
`Any argument or evidence related to any request for or alleged entitlement to an award of
`
`enhanced damages is not relevant to any issue that the jury must decide; it also would be unfairly
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836 Filed 01/21/22 Page 12 of 15 PageID# 22153
`
`
`prejudicial and could confuse the issues and mislead the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Accordingly, such argument or evidence should be excluded. (See, e.g., CloudofChange, LLC v.
`
`NCR Corp., No. 6:19-CV-00513-ADA, ECF No. 204 at 6 (W.D. TX. Nov. 8, 2021) (granting
`
`defendant’s motion in limine to exclude argument, evidence, and questions “to issues to be decided
`
`by the Court, such as injunction/post-trial damages, exceptional case/enhanced damages,
`
`attorneys’ fees, or post and pre-trial interest”) (attached as Exhibit 8); Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.
`
`Inc., No. 17-cv-00072-BLF, ECF No. 660 at 18 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2020) (“It is up to the Court,
`
`not the jury, to determine the enhanced damages if willful infringement i[s] found—and presenting
`
`the jury with the enhanced damages … would cause confusion and prejudice.”) (attached as
`
`Exhibit 9).)
`
`
`
`Attorneys’ Fees Or Costs Is An Issue For The Court.
`
`Like the issues above, whether attorneys’ fees or costs are warranted is an issue for the
`
`Court and not for the jury. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 285 (“The court in exceptional cases may award
`
`reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.”). (See also Ex. 8 [CloudofChange, LLC, No.
`
`6:19-CV-00513-ADA, ECF No. 204 at 6 (granting defendant’s motion in limine to exclude
`
`argument, evidence, and questions “to issues to be decided by the Court, such as injunction/post-
`
`trial damages, exceptional case/enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, or post and pre-trial
`
`interest”)]); AIA Am., Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, 866 F.3d 1369, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(“[R]equests for attorney’s fees under § 285 are equitable and do not invoke the Seventh
`
`Amendment right to a jury trial.”); Elan Pharms., LLC v. Sexton, 421 F. Supp. 3d 1119, 1125 (D.
`
`Kan. 2019) (“Thus, an award of attorneys’ fees under § 285 is a post-trial decision for the judge
`
`rather than an element of damages to be proved at trial.”).
`
`Accordingly, any argument or evidence related to any request for or alleged entitlement to
`
`an award of attorneys’ fees or costs is not relevant to any issue that the jury must decide. It is
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836 Filed 01/21/22 Page 13 of 15 PageID# 22154
`
`
`therefore irrelevant, would be unfairly prejudicial, and could confuse the issues and mislead the
`
`jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Reynolds respectfully requests that the Court exclude (1) all
`
`evidence and argument regarding any request for or alleged entitlement to issuance of an
`
`injunction, and (2) all evidence and argument regarding any request for or alleged entitlement to
`
`an award of enhanced damages or attorneys’ fees.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836 Filed 01/21/22 Page 14 of 15 PageID# 22155
`
`
`
`Dated: January 21, 2022
`
`
`
`Stephanie E. Parker
`JONES DAY
`1420 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Suite 800
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Telephone: (404) 521-3939
`Facsimile: (404) 581-8330
`Email: separker@jonesday.com
`
`
`Anthony M. Insogna
`JONES DAY
`4655 Executive Drive
`Suite 1500
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Telephone: (858) 314-1200
`Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
`Email: aminsogna@jonesday.com
`
`William E. Devitt
`JONES DAY
`77 West Wacker
`Suite 3500
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Telephone: (312) 269-4240
`Facsimile: (312) 782-8585
`Email: wdevitt@jonesday.com
`
`Sanjiv P. Laud
`JONES DAY
`90 South Seventh Street
`Suite 4950
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 217-8800
`Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
`Email: slaud@jonesday.com
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ David M. Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana (VA Bar No. 42334)
`Ryan B. McCrum
`JONES DAY
`901 Lakeside Ave.
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`Telephone: (216) 586-3939
`Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
`Email: dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`Email: rbmccrum@jonesday.com
`
`John J. Normile
`JONES DAY
`250 Vesey Street
`New York, NY 10281
`Telephone: (212) 326-3939
`Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
`Email: jjnormile@jonesday.com
`
`
`Alexis A. Smith
`JONES DAY
`555 South Flower Street
`Fiftieth Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 243-2653
`Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
`Email: asmith@jonesday.com
`
`Charles B. Molster
`THE LAW OFFICES OF
`CHARLES B. MOLSTER, III PLLC
`2141 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Suite M
`Washington, DC 20007
`Telephone: (202) 787-1312
`Email: cmolster@molsterlaw.com
`
`Counsel for RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836 Filed 01/21/22 Page 15 of 15 PageID# 22156
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 21st day of January, 2022, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing was served using the Court’s CM/ECF system, with electronic notification of such filing
`
`to all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David M. Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana (VA Bar No. 42334)
`JONES DAY
`901 Lakeside Ave.
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`Telephone: (216) 586-3939
`Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
`Email: dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`Counsel for RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`
`
`
`
`