Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 839 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 12 PageID# 22661
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`v.
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. and
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REYNOLDS’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO
`EXCLUDE ARGUMENT, EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY REGARDING REYNOLDS
`NOT OBTAINING OR RELYING ON AN OPINION OF COUNSEL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 839 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 12 PageID# 22662
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 2
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 839 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 12 PageID# 22663
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd.,
`No. 09-290, 2013 WL 4511293 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2013) .......................................................4
`
`Carson Optical Inc. v. eBay Inc.,
`202 F. Supp. 3d 247 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) .......................................................................................4
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`579 U.S. 93 (2016) .....................................................................................................................3
`
`McKesson Info. Sols., Inc. v. Bridge Med., Inc.,
`434 F. Supp. 2d 810 (E.D. Cal. 2006)........................................................................................6
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..............................................................................................2, 5
`
`Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-00220-MLH, 2020 WL 136591 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2020) ....................................4
`
`Visteon Glob. Techs., Inc. v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-10578, 2016 WL 4396085 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 18, 2016) ...........................................5
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 298 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Technical Corrections, Pub. L. No. 112-274,
`126 Stat. 2456 (2013) .................................................................................................................3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 .............................................................................................................................5
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 .........................................................................................................................5, 6
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98(I), 2011 WL 2150541 (June 1, 2011) ..........................................................6
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 839 Filed 01/21/22 Page 4 of 12 PageID# 22664
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Peter S. Menell, et al., Patent Case Management Judicial Guide, at § 7.5.4.6 (3d
`ed. 2016) https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2017/
`PCMJG3d 2016 final.pdf .........................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 839 Filed 01/21/22 Page 5 of 12 PageID# 22665
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. (“RAI”) and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (“RJRV”)
`
`(collectively “Reynolds”) respectfully move in limine to preclude Altria Client Services LLC
`
`(“ACS”), Philip Morris USA, Inc. (“PM USA”), and Philip Morris Products S.A. (“PMP”)
`
`(collectively, “PM/Altria”) from introducing argument, evidence, or testimony regarding
`
`Reynolds not obtaining or relying on an opinion of counsel that the asserted claims are not
`
`infringed and invalid. By statute (35 U.S.C. § 298), PM/Altria is precluded from relying on the
`
`lack of such an opinion to show alleged willful infringement or induced infringement. Given
`
`that lack of relevance as a matter of statute, and the lack of relevance to any other issue in the
`
`case and the substantial risk of prejudice if nonetheless admitted, all argument, evidence, and
`
`testimony regarding Reynolds not obtaining or relying on an opinion of counsel of non-
`
`infringement and invalidity should be excluded.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Reynolds filed its patent infringement complaint on April 9, 2020, as amended July 13,
`
`2020. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 52.) In response, PM/Altria filed counterclaims of infringement and willful
`
`infringement of PM/Altria patents and sought treble damages for the same. (Dkt. Nos. 193, 198,
`
`274, 279, 473, 483.) To determine PM/Altria’s basis for willful infringement, Reynolds served
`
`PM/Altria with Interrogatory (“ROG”) No. 12 asking for “each fact, Document, thing, and other
`
`evidence that supports [PM/Altria’s] contention, if any, that [Reynolds’s] alleged Infringement is
`
`or was deliberate or willful.” Philip Morris Products S.A.’s Supplemental Objections and
`
`Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories (No. 12) at 5-6, dated April 12, 2021
`
`(“PMP’s ROG Responses”); Altria Client Services LLC and Philip Morris USA Inc.’s
`
`Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories (No. 12) at
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 839 Filed 01/21/22 Page 6 of 12 PageID# 22666
`
`
`5, dated April 21, 2021 (“ACS / PM USA’s ROG Responses”). ROG No. 12 reads in its
`
`entirety:
`
`Separately for each Altria Asserted Patent, Identify and Describe each fact,
`Document, thing, and other evidence that supports Defendants’ contention, if any,
`that [Reynolds’s] alleged Infringement is or was deliberate or willful, that the case
`is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and/or that the Defendants are entitled to
`any form of increased damages or attorneys’ fees, including but not limited to any
`and all facts reflecting [Reynolds’s] alleged knowledge of the Altria Asserted
`Patents and/or [Reynolds’s] alleged knowledge that the Reynolds Accused
`Products allegedly Infringed.
`
`Id. PM/Altria’s response included that “Reynolds has not provided any evidence that it obtained
`
`an opinion of counsel letter.” PMP’s ROG Responses at 7; ACS / PM USA’s ROG Responses at
`
`7, 11.
`
`On December 10, 2021, the parties met and conferred regarding their proposed motion in
`
`limine topics, and Reynolds raised the topic of excluding any argument, evidence, or testimony
`
`regarding Reynolds not obtaining or relying on an opinion of counsel. The parties were unable
`
`to reach a resolution on these issues.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`PM/Altria should be precluded from presenting argument, evidence, or testimony
`
`regarding Reynolds not relying on an opinion of counsel or suggesting that Reynolds should
`
`have obtained one (and any other such adverse inference). Such argument, evidence, or
`
`testimony would only invite legal error, because the “decision not to seek an advice-of-counsel
`
`defense is legally irrelevant under 35 U.S.C. § 298.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 930 F.3d
`
`1295, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`Section 298, entitled “Advice of counsel,” states in full:
`
`The failure of an infringer to obtain the advice of counsel with
`respect to any allegedly infringed patent, or the failure of the
`infringer to present such advice to the court or jury, may not be
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 839 Filed 01/21/22 Page 7 of 12 PageID# 22667
`
`
`
`used to prove that the accused infringer willfully infringed the
`patent or that the infringer intended to induce infringement of the
`patent.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 298. Section 298 “appl[ies] to any civil action commenced on or after the date of
`
`the enactment of” the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Technical Corrections, i.e., on or after
`
`January 14, 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-274, § 1(a), and was enacted to make clear that a defendant
`
`does not have any duty to seek or rely on an opinion of counsel when facing a potential risk of
`
`infringement. Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Technical Corrections, Pub. L. No. 112-274,
`
`126 Stat. 2456 § 1(a) (2013); see Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 579 U.S. 93, 109 (2016)
`
`(explaining that Section 298 “addressed the fallout from the Federal Circuit’s opinion in
`
`Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 717 F.2d 1380 (1983), which had imposed
`
`an ‘affirmative duty’ to obtain advice of counsel prior to initiating any possible infringing
`
`activity”). Further underscoring Section 298’s wholesale exclusion of such evidence, the Federal
`
`Judicial Center recommends in its Patent Case Management Judicial Guide that “the court should
`
`grant a motion in limine that seeks to exclude evidence that an accused infringer failed to obtain,
`
`or to disclose in the litigation, an opinion of counsel regarding the asserted patent, when that
`
`evidence is proffered for the purpose of establishing willful infringement or indirect
`
`infringement.” Peter S. Menell et al., Patent Case Management Judicial Guide, at § 7.5.4.6 (3d
`
`ed. 2016) https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2017/PCMJG3d 2016 final.pdf (“Patent
`
`Judicial Guide”); see also Patent Judicial Guide, at § 7.3.4.6 (“It is also worth noting that in
`
`amending the law governing the use of legal opinions, the AIA . . . prevents plaintiffs from
`
`using the lack of a legal opinion to show willfulness”) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Here, the present action commenced on April 9, 2020, and so 35 U.S.C. § 298 applies to
`
`this case. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Technical Corrections, Pub. L. No. 112-274,
`
`126 Stat. 2456 § 1(a) (2013); Carson Optical Inc. v. eBay Inc., 202 F. Supp. 3d 247, 260
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 839 Filed 01/21/22 Page 8 of 12 PageID# 22668
`
`
`(E.D.N.Y. 2016) (“The technical corrections explicitly overrode the prior effective date of § 298
`
`under the AIA, and require that § 298 be applied to all civil actions commenced on or after
`
`January 14, 2013 regardless of when the patents-in-suit were issued.”) (footnote omitted);
`
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd., No. 09-290, 2013 WL 4511293, at *5 n.13
`
`(W.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2013) (“[T]his provision only applies to any law suit commenced on or after
`
`January 14, 2013 without regard to the issue date of the asserted patent.”). The Court should
`
`thus exclude any argument, evidence, or testimony regarding lack of opinion of counsel as
`
`irrelevant, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE” or “Rule”) 401. Under Section 298,
`
`PM/Altria cannot use any evidence, argument or testimony regarding Reynolds’s failure to
`
`obtain or rely on advice of counsel for the purpose of proving “that [Reynolds] willfully
`
`infringed the patent[s] or that [Reynolds] intended to induce infringement of the patent[s].” 35
`
`U.S.C. § 298; see, e.g., Carson Optical, 202 F. Supp. 3d at 260; Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc.,
`
`No. 2:17-cv-00220-MLH (KSx), 2020 WL 136591, at *21 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2020) (Under
`
`Section 298, “Vaporstream cannot rely on Snap’s failure to obtain an opinion of counsel as
`
`evidence of willful infringement.”).
`
`Despite Section 298, however, PM/Altria’s discovery responses on alleged willfulness
`
`identified the fact that “Reynolds has not provided any evidence that it obtained an opinion of
`
`counsel letter,” (PMP’s ROG Responses at 7; ACS / PM USA’s ROG Responses at 7, 11),
`
`contrary to Section 298. And while PM/Altria have not raised the absence of an opinion of
`
`counsel as purported evidence of induced infringement, even if they had, Section 298 would bar
`
`such evidence as well.1 See 35 U.S.C. § 298.
`
`
`
`
`1 PM/Altria did not reference the lack of opinion of counsel in its response to Reynolds’s
`ROG No. 8, which sought PM/Altria’s “factual and legal bases” supporting infringement,
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 839 Filed 01/21/22 Page 9 of 12 PageID# 22669
`
`
`
`Other than PM/Altria’s claims for willfulness and induced infringement (to which lack of
`
`advice of counsel is legally irrelevant under Section 298), there are no other claims in this case
`
`for which failure to obtain or rely on advice of counsel would be relevant, nor has PM/Altria
`
`made known any other purposes for which it would seek to use this evidence. Therefore, the
`
`Court should exclude as irrelevant any trial testimony, evidence or argument that Reynolds did
`
`not obtain or rely on an opinion of counsel. FRE 401; 35 U.S.C. § 298; SRI Int’l, 930 F.3d at
`
`1309. The Court should likewise exclude any suggestion that Reynolds should have obtained an
`
`opinion of counsel (and any other such adverse inference).
`
`Notably, even before Congress enacted Section 298, courts often excluded evidence
`
`regarding failure to seek or rely on an opinion of counsel, given that any probative value of such
`
`evidence would be substantially outweighed by Rule 403 considerations, including “a danger of .
`
`. . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, [and] misleading the jury.” FRE 403. As the Federal
`
`Circuit made clear even before Section 298, and district courts routinely explained, “[t]here is no
`
`affirmative obligation to obtain opinion of counsel,” and “[t]he adverse inference that an opinion
`
`was or would have been unfavorable, flowing from the infringer’s failure to obtain or produce an
`
`exculpatory opinion of counsel, is no longer warranted.” E.g., Visteon Glob. Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Garmin Int’l, Inc., No. 10-cv-10578, 2016 WL 4396085, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 18, 2016)
`
`(citation and quotation omitted). “[P]ermit[ting] such evidence, even with a cautionary
`
`instruction imposing Knorr’s limitations (of no adverse inference), the jury would nevertheless
`
`be left to speculate why [defendant] would not reveal its counsel’s opinion,” with the
`
`“inescapable” conclusion that defendant “received an unfavorable opinion, otherwise [defendant]
`
`
`
`including induced infringement. As such, PM/Altria cannot use such evidence for induced
`infringement. But regardless, as explained above, it would be irrelevant under Section 298.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 839 Filed 01/21/22 Page 10 of 12 PageID# 22670
`
`
`would reveal it.” McKesson Info. Sols., Inc. v. Bridge Med., Inc., 434 F. Supp. 2d 810, 812 (E.D.
`
`Cal. 2006). Likewise here, even without Section 298, exclusion would be warranted given the
`
`risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighing any probative value. But because Section 298
`
`applies, the Court need not reach FRE 403 considerations. Indeed, Section 298 “reflects a policy
`
`choice that the probative value of this type of evidence is outweighed by the harm that coercing a
`
`waiver of attorney-client privilege inflicts on the attorney-client relationship” H.R. Rep. No.
`
`112-98(I), 2011 WL 2150541, at *53 (June 1, 2011).
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Reynolds respectfully asks that the Court grant Reynolds’s motion in limine to preclude
`
`PM/Altria from presenting any argument, evidence, or testimony regarding Reynolds not
`
`obtaining or relying on an opinion of counsel or suggesting that Reynolds should have obtained
`
`one (and any other adverse inference related to absence of an opinion of counsel).
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 839 Filed 01/21/22 Page 11 of 12 PageID# 22671
`
`Dated: January 21, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`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
`
`/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 839 Filed 01/21/22 Page 12 of 12 PageID# 22672
`
`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
`
`