Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 22767
`
`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. 7 TO
`PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT ANY VUSE PRODUCTS
`ALLEGEDLY INFRINGE ANY CLAIM OF THE ’545 PATENT ON THE BASIS THAT
`JUUL AND/OR NUMARK ALLEGEDLY PRACTICE THAT PATENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 13 PageID# 22768
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 6
`I.
`MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT REYNOLD’s POSITION ON THE JUUL
`AND MARKTEN PRODUCTS WOULD CAUSE UNFAIR PREJUDICE,
`CONFUSE THE ISSUES, MISLEAD THE JURY, AND WASTE TIME. ..................... 6
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 13 PageID# 22769
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................6
`
`Johnson & Johnston Assocs. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co.,
`285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc)..................................................................................7
`
`Zenith Lab’ys, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,
`19 F.3d 1418 (Fed. Cir. 1994)....................................................................................................7
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ............................................................................................................................1, 5
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 106 .............................................................................................................................8
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 .........................................................................................................................6, 7
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 .............................................................................................................................6
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 .........................................................................................................................6, 7
`
`L.R. 7(E) ..........................................................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846 Filed 01/21/22 Page 4 of 13 PageID# 22770
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively,
`
`“Reynolds”) respectfully move for an order excluding all evidence and argument, whether
`
`presented in attorney argument, on direct or cross-examination, for impeachment or otherwise,
`
`that (1) misrepresents Reynolds’s position on whether vaping products by JUUL and/or NuMark
`
`practiced the ’545 patent (or any other asserted patent); or (2) suggests that Reynolds’s position
`
`is relevant to whether Reynolds’s VUSE products infringe the ’545 patent. Philip Morris
`
`Products S.A. (“PMP”), Altria Client Services, LLC (“ACS”), and Phillip Morris USA Inc. (“PM
`
`USA”) (collectively “PM/Altria”) should be precluded from offering such evidence and
`
`argument because their expert’s opinions to that effect are based on deliberate misrepresentations
`
`of Reynolds’s discovery responses, and such arguments would only serve to confuse and mislead
`
`the jury.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`JUUL and NuMark are affiliates of PM/Atria who sold electronic smoking devices under
`
`licenses to the ’545 patent (and to the ’374 patent). Throughout this case, the parties have
`
`disagreed over whether JUUL and NuMark’s products would infringe the patent if they were not
`
`licensed—i.e., whether they “practice the claims” of the ’545 patent. If the JUUL and NuMark
`
`products practiced the claims of the patent, then PM/Altria would be barred from recovering pre-
`
`suit damages for infringement of the ’545 patent because they failed to ensure that the products
`
`were marked with the patent number. See 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). The failure to mark would also be
`
`relevant to PM/Altria’s claims for ongoing royalty and willful infringement. It is undisputed that
`
`the JUUL and NuMark products were not marked with the ’545 patent.
`
`During discovery, each party sought the other’s contentions on whether the JUUL and
`
`NuMark products practiced the claims of the ’545 patent. While PM/Altria refused to provide
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846 Filed 01/21/22 Page 5 of 13 PageID# 22771
`
`
`meaningful responses to Reynolds’s discovery request, Reynolds answered in full. Reynolds
`
`contended (and still does) that the JUUL and MarkTen products must practice the claims of the
`
`’545 patent under PM/Altria’s apparent interpretation of the claims in which they believe
`
`Reynolds infringes, as all of the products have lithium ion batteries and use pulse width
`
`modulation to regulate power. In other words, although Reynolds believes that it does not
`
`infringe the ’545 patent, and that the JUUL and MarkTen products also do not practice the
`
`patent, Reynolds believes that the JUUL and MarkTen products must practice the patent if
`
`PM/Altria is correct about infringement.
`
`Reynolds’s initial discovery responses accordingly took the following form: “Reynolds
`
`admits that JUUL makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports into the United States and has
`
`made, used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported into the United States one or more Products
`
`that practices one or more claims of the ’545 Patent as those claims are construed and asserted
`
`by Defendants.” Ex. 1, Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Third Set of Requests for Admission
`
`(Nos. 108-110) (January 1, 2021) at 4 (emphasis added). And to make its position even more
`
`explicit, Reynolds later supplemented its responses, stating: “Reynolds denies that JUUL makes,
`
`uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports into the United States and has made, used, sold, offered
`
`for sale, and/or imported into the United States one or more Products that practices one or more
`
`claims of the ’545 Patent as Reynolds applies the claims.” Ex. 2 Plaintiffs’ First Supplemental
`
`Response to Defendants’ Third Set of Requests for Admission (Nos. 108-111) (March 29, 2021)
`
`at 2. Reynolds’s expert witness Dr. Blalock similarly opined that JUUL and MarkTen Elite
`
`“practice one or more of the asserted claims of ’545 Patent to the extent that the Reynolds
`
`Accused VUSE Products do.” Ex. 3, Blalock Rebuttal Report at ¶ 159 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846 Filed 01/21/22 Page 6 of 13 PageID# 22772
`
`
`
`Despite Reynolds’s stating that JUUL and NuMark practiced the ’545 patent only under
`
`PM/Altria’s interpretation of the claims, PM/Altria’s expert Mr. McAlexander stated a number of
`
`times in his report that Reynolds unequivocally “admit[ted]” that the devices practice the ’545
`
`patent. See e.g., Ex. 4, McAlexander Second Supplemental Opening Expert Report
`
`(“McAlexander Opening Report”) at ¶ 681 (“RJR admits that ‘JUUL makes, uses, sells, offers
`
`for sale, and/or imports into the United States and has made, used, sold[,] offered for sale,
`
`amd/or imported into the United States one or more Products that practices one or more claims of
`
`the ’545 Patent.’”); see also id at ¶ 682 (“RJR also admits that NuMark’s MarkTen, MarkTen
`
`Elite, and MarkTen XL practiced one or more asserted claims of the ’545 Patent.”).
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s statements were based on deliberate misquoting of Reynolds’s discovery
`
`responses:
`
`McAlexander Statement
`“RJR admits that ‘JUUL makes, uses, sells,
`offers for sale, and/or imports into the United
`States and has made, used, sold offered for
`sale, and/or imported into the United States
`one or more Products that practices one or
`more claims of the ’545 Patent.’”
`
`
`
`Ex. 4, McAlexander Opening Report at ¶ 681
`(citing RJR’s Response to RFA Nos. 108-111,
`dated Jan. 4, 2021).
`
`“RJR also admits that NuMark’s MarkTen,
`MarkTen Elite, and MarkTen XL practiced
`one or more asserted claims of the '545
`Patent.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reynolds’s Response
`“Reynolds admits that JUUL makes, uses,
`sells, offers for sale, and/or imports into the
`United States and has made, used, sold,
`offered for sale, and/or imported into the
`United States one or more Products that
`practices one or more claims of the ’545
`Patent as those claims are construed and
`asserted by Defendants.”
`
`Ex. 1, Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’
`Third Set Of Requests For Admission (Nos.
`108-111) (Jan. 1, 2021) at 4 (emphasis
`added).
`“Reynolds is informed and believes that
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs or their
`former or current licensees have practiced or
`presently practice one or more asserted claims
`of at least the asserted ’545 and ’374 patents,
`as Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs have
`construed and asserted those claims, and that
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs or their
`former or current licensees have failed to
`show that they complied with the notice
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846 Filed 01/21/22 Page 7 of 13 PageID# 22773
`
`
`
`
`
`McAlexander Statement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 4, McAlexander Opening Report at ¶ 682
`(citing RJR’s Response to Rog No. 28, dated
`Jan. 4, 2021).
`“The VUSE Products each practice the '545
`Patent and RJR itself admits that the
`numerous commercial products from a variety
`of parties (MarkTen Elite, JUUL, MarkTen,
`MarkTen XL, GreenSmoke, Accord Series K)
`practice the '545 Patent, reflecting the
`difficulty in designing around this patent.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 4, McAlexander Opening Report at ¶ 793
`(citing RJR’s Response to Rog No. 28, dated
`Jan. 4, 2021).
`“For example, as discussed above, RJR
`admits that the GreenSmoke, MarkTen Elite,
`MarkTen, MarkTen XL, and JUUL Products
`all practice the '545 Patent.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reynolds’s Response
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287. For
`instance, based upon Defendants’/
`Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ contentions, their
`affiliate Nu Mark and their licensee JUUL
`made or continue to make products (i.e., the
`MarkTen Elite and the JUUL product) that
`practiced or practice one or more asserted
`claims of the ’545 patent.”
`
`Ex. 5, Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’
`Seventh Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 27-28)
`(Jan. 4, 2021) at 7 (emphases added).
`“Reynolds is informed and believes that
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs or their
`former or current licensees have practiced or
`presently practice one or more asserted claims
`of at least the asserted ’545 and ’374 patents,
`as Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs have
`construed and asserted those claims, and that
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs or their
`former or current licensees have failed to
`show that they complied with the notice
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287. For
`instance, based upon Defendants’/
`Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ contentions, their
`affiliate Nu Mark and their licensee JUUL
`made or continue to make products (i.e., the
`MarkTen Elite and the JUUL product) that
`practiced or practice one or more asserted
`claims of the ’545 patent.”
`
`Ex. 5, Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’
`Seventh Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 27-28)
`(Jan. 4, 2021) at 7 (emphases added).
`“Reynolds is informed and believes that
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs or their
`former or current licensees have practiced or
`presently practice one or more asserted claims
`of at least the asserted ’545 and ’374 patents,
`as Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs have
`construed and asserted those claims, and that
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs or their
`former or current licensees have failed to
`show that they complied with the notice
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287. For
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846 Filed 01/21/22 Page 8 of 13 PageID# 22774
`
`
`
`McAlexander Statement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 4, McAlexander Opening Report at ¶ 794
`(citing RJR’s Response to Rog No. 28, dated
`Jan. 4, 2021).
`
`Reynolds’s Response
`instance, based upon Defendants’/
`Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ contentions, their
`affiliate Nu Mark and their licensee JUUL
`made or continue to make products (i.e., the
`MarkTen Elite and the JUUL product) that
`practiced or practice one or more asserted
`claims of the ’545 patent.”
`
`Ex. 5, Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’
`Seventh Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 27-28)
`(Jan. 4, 2021) at 7 (emphases added).
`
`By omitting the key qualifications in Reynolds’s response, Mr. McAlexander
`
`misrepresented Reynolds’s position on the JUUL and NuMark devices, which can only be for the
`
`purpose of implying that Reynolds has admitted its own devices infringe the patent.
`
`Similarly, PM/Altria’s damages expert Mr. Meyer also mischaracterizes Reynolds’s
`
`position for the purposes of bolstering his damages opinion and the purported value of the ’545
`
`patent. In particular, Mr. Meyer claims that: “the parties agree that JUUL practices the ’545
`
`Patent” and “[t]hat both parties agree that the current E-Vapor market leader (JUUL) uses the
`
`technology claimed in the ’545 Patent is further evidence that the ’545 patented technology is
`
`fundamentally important and valuable to consumers.” Ex. 6, Amended and Supplemental
`
`Opening Expert Report of Paul K. Meyer, dated April 26, 2021 (the “Meyer Report”), ¶ 422.
`
`Mr. Meyer similarly claims that “Reynolds believes that Nu Mark used the technology claimed
`
`in the ’545 Patent is further indication that the ’545 patented technology is fundamentally
`
`important and valuable.” Id., ¶ 423.1 But Mr. Meyer’s statements fundamentally
`
`
`
`
`1 In a similar fashion, Mr. Meyer mischaracterizes Reynolds’s position as to whether the
`JUUL and Nu Mark products practice the ’374 patent to bolster his opinion. Id., ¶¶ 458-459.
`But there, too, Reynolds only contended those products practiced as PM/Altria construes the
`claims. Ex. 5, Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Seventh Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 27-28)
`(Jan. 4, 2021) at 7.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846 Filed 01/21/22 Page 9 of 13 PageID# 22775
`
`
`mischaracterize Reynolds’s position, which is that the JUUL and Nu Mark products do not
`
`practice under the proper construction of the claims. Ex. 1, Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’
`
`Third Set Of Requests For Admission (Nos. 108-111) (Jan. 1, 2021) at 4; Ex. 5, Plaintiffs’
`
`Response to Defendants’ Seventh Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 27-28) (Jan. 4, 2021) at 7.
`
`If Mr. McAlexander, Mr. Meyer, or PM/Altria’s lawyers are permitted to make similar
`
`misrepresentations during trial, it would unfairly prejudice Reynolds and only serve to confuse
`
`and mislead the jury. Accordingly, Reynolds respectfully moves for an order precluding any
`
`such misrepresentations.2
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT REYNOLD’S POSITION ON THE JUUL
`AND MARKTEN PRODUCTS WOULD CAUSE UNFAIR PREJUDICE,
`CONFUSE THE ISSUES, MISLEAD THE JURY, AND WASTE TIME.
`
`“Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than
`
`it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.”
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Even relevant
`
`evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one
`
`or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`Determining whether Reynolds infringes the ’545 patent requires comparing the asserted
`
`claims to the accused VUSE products. Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 659 F.3d
`
`1121, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The jury will not determine infringement by comparing Reynolds’s
`
`
`
`
`2 Pursuant to L.R. 7(E), undersigned counsel certifies that they conferred with
`PM/Altria’s counsel on December 10, 2021, and that they were unable to reach a resolution prior
`to the filing of this motion.
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846 Filed 01/21/22 Page 10 of 13 PageID# 22776
`
`
`products to the JUUL and MarkTen products. Zenith Lab’ys, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,
`
`19 F.3d 1418, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“As we have repeatedly said, it is error for a court to
`
`compare in its infringement analysis the accused product or process with the patentee’s
`
`commercial embodiment or other version of the product or process; the only proper comparison
`
`is with the claims of the patent.”); see also Johnson & Johnston Assocs. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co.,
`
`285 F.3d 1046, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc) (“Infringement, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, does not arise by comparing the accused product ‘with . . . a
`
`commercialized embodiment of the patentee.’”) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Reynolds’s
`
`position on whether the JUUL and NuMark products practice the ’545 patent is not relevant to
`
`infringement (and has no bearing on appropriate damages here), and even if it were, any
`
`probative value would be substantially outweighed by the dangers of confusing the issue and
`
`misleading the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. But the Court need not reach the question of
`
`relevance, because Mr. McAlexander’s statements—and any similar arguments by PM/Altria’s
`
`counsel—are based on misrepresentations of Reynolds’s position, and therefore should be
`
`excluded regardless of the relevance of the question to which they pertain.
`
`PM/Altria and its expert should not be allowed to misstate Reynolds’s position regarding
`
`JUUL or NuMark because such misrepresentations are certain to cause unfair prejudice, confuse
`
`the issues, mislead the jury, and waste time. Stating incorrectly that Reynolds believes the ’545
`
`patent covers the JUUL and NuMark products would wrongly imply that Reynolds believes the
`
`’545 patent covers its own products, which similarly have lithium ion batteries and use pulse
`
`width modulation to regulate power. It would force Reynolds to waste trial time debunking the
`
`misrepresentations, such as by invoking the rule of completeness to introduce the portions of
`
`Reynolds’s discovery responses that Mr. McAlexander omitted and “in fairness ought to be
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846 Filed 01/21/22 Page 11 of 13 PageID# 22777
`
`
`considered at the same time.” Fed. R. Evid. 106. Mr. Meyer’s mis-stated conclusions about
`
`Reynolds’s position would similarly require correction and explanation. And it would risk
`
`confusing the jury by making an already-complicated patent case even more arcane.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`PM/Altria should be precluded from offering evidence or argument that misrepresents
`
`Reynolds’s position on whether JUUL and/or NuMark practiced the ’545 patent, and from
`
`suggesting that Reynolds’s position is relevant to whether Reynolds’s VUSE products infringe
`
`the ’545 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846 Filed 01/21/22 Page 12 of 13 PageID# 22778
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846 Filed 01/21/22 Page 13 of 13 PageID# 22779
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`