Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 22780
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 13 PagelD# 22780
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 13 PageID# 22781
`
`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,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:20cv00393-LO-TCB
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USA, INC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTS S.A.,
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. AND R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY’S
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, PHILIP
`MORRIS USA, INC., AND PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A.’S THIRD SET OF
`REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 108-115)
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 36, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively, “Reynolds”) hereby respond to Altria Client Services
`
`LLC, Philip Morris USA, Inc., and Philip Morris Products S.A.’s (collectively, “Defendants” or
`
`“Counterclaim Plaintiffs”) Third Set of Requests for Admission (Nos. 108-115) as follows.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Reynolds has not yet completed discovery relating to this case, and while it has made
`
`reasonable investigation for responsive information, its investigation of the facts is continuing.
`
`Reynolds objects and responds to these Requests for Admission as it interprets and understands
`
`each request as set forth. Reynolds’s objections and responses to these requests are made without
`
`prejudice to Reynolds’s right to supplement, correct, or otherwise modify the objections and
`
`responses to the extent permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules for
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 13 PageID# 22782
`
`the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, or any other applicable rule or
`
`regulation.
`
`Reynolds objects to the requests to the extent that they seek information subject to the
`
`attorney-client privilege, attorney work product immunity, the common interest privilege, or any
`
`other applicable privilege or immunity against disclosure. Such information will not be provided
`
`in response to the requests, and any inadvertent disclosure shall not be deemed a waiver of any
`
`privilege, work product protection, or other protection.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`Reynolds objects to the Definitions and Instructions to the extent that they seek to impose
`
`obligations on Reynolds more extensive than those required by the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure or the Local Civil Rules for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
`
`and specifically objects as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Reynolds objects to the definition of “You,” “Plaintiffs,” “Counterclaim
`
`Defendants,” and “RJR” as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it incorporates entities
`
`and individuals that are not a party to this case and on whose behalf Reynolds lacks the authority
`
`and information to respond. Reynolds objects to the terms “You,” “Plaintiffs,” “Counterclaim
`
`Defendants,” and “RJR” as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent they purport to
`
`include either RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.’s or R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company’s predecessors-in-
`
`interest, parents, subsidiaries, joint ventures, affiliates, assigns, attorneys, other affiliated or related
`
`businesses, and other legal entitles whether wholly or partially owned or controlled by either RAI
`
`Strategic Holdings, Inc. or R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company. Reynolds objects to the definition of
`
`“You,” “Plaintiffs,” “Counterclaim Defendants,” and “RJR” as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome to the extent they purport to include the principals, directors, officers, owners,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 4 of 13 PageID# 22783
`
`members, representatives, employees, agents, consultants, accountants, and attorneys of either
`
`RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. or R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company who are acting outside of their
`
`roles with respect to either of those companies. In responding to these requests, Reynolds shall
`
`construe “You,” “Plaintiffs,” “Counterclaim Defendants,” and “RJR” to refer to RAI Strategic
`
`Holdings, Inc. or R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.
`
`2.
`
`Reynolds objects to Defendants’/Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ definition of “RJR
`
`Accused Product(s)” as vague and ambiguous insofar as that definition includes products beyond
`
`the RJR Accused Products that have been specifically identified by Defendants/Counterclaim
`
`Plaintiffs in their Counterclaims. In responding to these requests, Reynolds shall construe RJR
`
`Accused Products to refer to the VUSE Solo®, VUSE VibeTM, VUSE Ciro®, and VUSE Alto®
`
`devices and their associated flavor packs identified in Defendants’/Counterclaim Plaintiffs’
`
`Counterclaims.
`
`3.
`
`Reynolds objects
`
`to Defendants’/Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ definition of
`
`“Counterclaim Asserted Patent(s)” as overly broad to the extent that definition includes patents
`
`that Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs have not asserted in this case, or non-patent references
`
`such as patent applications. In responding to these requests, Reynolds shall construe Counterclaim
`
`Asserted Patents to refer to U.S. Patent No. 9,814,265, U.S. Patent No. 10,555,556, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,104,911, U.S. Patent No. 6,803,545, and U.S. Patent No. 10,420,374.
`
`4.
`
`Reynolds objects to Defendants’/Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ Instruction Nos. 2 and 9
`
`as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information that is not relevant to any claim or
`
`defense in this case to the extent they seek information from entities and individuals that are not a
`
`party to this case and on whose behalf Reynolds lacks the authority and information to respond.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 5 of 13 PageID# 22784
`
`REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 108:
`
`
`
`Admit 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.
`
`OBJECTIONS:
`
`
`
`Reynolds objects to this Request to the extent it requires Reynolds to admit or deny the
`
`Request based on information that is not in Reynolds’s possession. Reynolds objects to this
`
`Request as seeking disputed legal and factual contentions. Reynolds objects to this Request as an
`
`improper substitute for discovery devices such as interrogatories or requests for production. See
`
`Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Johnson, 272 F.R.D. 177, 183 (S.D. W. Va. 2010) (noting that Rule
`
`36(a) requests “are not a discovery device” (quoting Harris v. Koenig, 271 F.R.D. 356, 372
`
`(D.D.C. 2010))). Reynolds objects to this Request as an improper compound request.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, based upon Reynolds’s reasonable inquiry
`
`and on information and belief, 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.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 109:
`
`
`
`Admit that JUUL makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports into the United States
`
`or 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.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 6 of 13 PageID# 22785
`
`OBJECTIONS:
`
`
`
`Reynolds objects to this Request to the extent it requires Reynolds to admit or deny the
`
`Request based on information that is not in Reynolds’s possession. Reynolds objects to this
`
`Request as seeking disputed legal and factual contentions. Reynolds objects to this Request as an
`
`improper substitute for discovery devices such as interrogatories or requests for production. See
`
`Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Johnson, 272 F.R.D. 177, 183 (S.D. W. Va. 2010) (noting that Rule
`
`36(a) requests “are not a discovery device” (quoting Harris v. Koenig, 271 F.R.D. 356, 372
`
`(D.D.C. 2010))). Reynolds objects to this Request as an improper compound request.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, based upon Reynolds’s reasonable inquiry
`
`and on information and belief, Reynolds admits that JUUL makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or
`
`imports into the United States or 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.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 110:
`
`
`
`Admit that JUUL does not make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import into the United
`
`States and has not 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.
`
`OBJECTIONS:
`
`
`
`Reynolds objects to this Request to the extent it requires Reynolds to admit or deny the
`
`Request based on information that is not in Reynolds’s possession. Reynolds objects to this
`
`Request as seeking disputed legal and factual contentions. Reynolds objects to this Request as an
`
`improper substitute for discovery devices such as interrogatories or requests for production. See
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 7 of 13 PageID# 22786
`
`Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Johnson, 272 F.R.D. 177, 183 (S.D. W. Va. 2010) (noting that Rule
`
`36(a) requests “are not a discovery device” (quoting Harris v. Koenig, 271 F.R.D. 356, 372
`
`(D.D.C. 2010))). Reynolds objects to this Request as an improper compound request.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, based upon Reynolds’s reasonable inquiry
`
`and on information and belief, Reynolds denies that JUUL does not make, use, sell, offer for sale,
`
`and/or import into the United States and has not 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.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 111:
`
`
`
`Admit that JUUL does not make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import into the United
`
`States or has not 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.
`
`OBJECTIONS:
`
`
`
`Reynolds objects to this Request to the extent it requires Reynolds to admit or deny the
`
`Request based on information that is not in Reynolds’s possession. Reynolds objects to this
`
`Request as seeking disputed legal and factual contentions. Reynolds objects to this Request as an
`
`improper substitute for discovery devices such as interrogatories or requests for production. See
`
`Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Johnson, 272 F.R.D. 177, 183 (S.D. W. Va. 2010) (noting that Rule
`
`36(a) requests “are not a discovery device” (quoting Harris v. Koenig, 271 F.R.D. 356, 372
`
`(D.D.C. 2010))). Reynolds objects to this Request as an improper compound request.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 8 of 13 PageID# 22787
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, based upon Reynolds’s reasonable inquiry
`
`and on information and belief, Reynolds denies that JUUL does not make, use, sell, offer for sale,
`
`and/or import into the United States or has not 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.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 112:
`
`
`
`Admit 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 ’374 Patent.
`
`OBJECTIONS:
`
`
`
`Reynolds objects to this Request to the extent it requires Reynolds to admit or deny the
`
`Request based on information that is not in Reynolds’s possession. Reynolds objects to this
`
`Request as seeking disputed legal and factual contentions. Reynolds objects to this Request as an
`
`improper substitute for discovery devices such as interrogatories or requests for production. See
`
`Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Johnson, 272 F.R.D. 177, 183 (S.D. W. Va. 2010) (noting that Rule
`
`36(a) requests “are not a discovery device” (quoting Harris v. Koenig, 271 F.R.D. 356, 372
`
`(D.D.C. 2010))). Reynolds objects to this Request as an improper compound request.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, based upon Reynolds’s reasonable inquiry
`
`and on information and belief, 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 ’374 Patent as those
`
`claims are construed and asserted by Defendants.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 9 of 13 PageID# 22788
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 113:
`
`
`
`Admit that JUUL makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports into the United States
`
`or 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 ’374 Patent.
`
`OBJECTIONS:
`
`
`
`Reynolds objects to this Request to the extent it requires Reynolds to admit or deny the
`
`Request based on information that is not in Reynolds’s possession. Reynolds objects to this
`
`Request as seeking disputed legal and factual contentions. Reynolds objects to this Request as an
`
`improper substitute for discovery devices such as interrogatories or requests for production. See
`
`Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Johnson, 272 F.R.D. 177, 183 (S.D. W. Va. 2010) (noting that Rule
`
`36(a) requests “are not a discovery device” (quoting Harris v. Koenig, 271 F.R.D. 356, 372
`
`(D.D.C. 2010))). Reynolds objects to this Request as an improper compound request.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, based upon Reynolds’s reasonable inquiry
`
`and on information and belief, Reynolds admits that JUUL makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or
`
`imports into the United States or 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 ’374 Patent as those
`
`claims are construed and asserted by Defendants.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 114:
`
`
`
`Admit that JUUL does not make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import into the United
`
`States and has not 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 ’374 Patent.
`
`OBJECTIONS:
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 10 of 13 PageID# 22789
`
`
`
`Reynolds objects to this Request to the extent it requires Reynolds to admit or deny the
`
`Request based on information that is not in Reynolds’s possession. Reynolds objects to this
`
`Request as seeking disputed legal and factual contentions. Reynolds objects to this Request as an
`
`improper substitute for discovery devices such as interrogatories or requests for production. See
`
`Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Johnson, 272 F.R.D. 177, 183 (S.D. W. Va. 2010) (noting that Rule
`
`36(a) requests “are not a discovery device” (quoting Harris v. Koenig, 271 F.R.D. 356, 372
`
`(D.D.C. 2010))). Reynolds objects to this Request as an improper compound request.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, based upon Reynolds’s reasonable inquiry
`
`and on information and belief, Reynolds denies that JUUL does not make, use, sell, offer for sale,
`
`and/or import into the United States and has not 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 ’374 Patent
`
`as those claims are construed and asserted by Defendants.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 115:
`
`
`
`Admit that JUUL does not make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import into the United
`
`States or has not 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 ’374 Patent.
`
`OBJECTIONS:
`
`
`
`Reynolds objects to this Request to the extent it requires Reynolds to admit or deny the
`
`Request based on information that is not in Reynolds’s possession. Reynolds objects to this
`
`Request as seeking disputed legal and factual contentions. Reynolds objects to this Request as an
`
`improper substitute for discovery devices such as interrogatories or requests for production. See
`
`Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Johnson, 272 F.R.D. 177, 183 (S.D. W. Va. 2010) (noting that Rule
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 11 of 13 PageID# 22790
`
`36(a) requests “are not a discovery device” (quoting Harris v. Koenig, 271 F.R.D. 356, 372
`
`(D.D.C. 2010))). Reynolds objects to this Request as an improper compound request.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, based upon Reynolds’s reasonable inquiry
`
`and on information and belief, Reynolds denies that JUUL does not make, use, sell, offer for sale,
`
`and/or import into the United States or has not 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 ’374 Patent
`
`as those claims are construed and asserted by Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 12 of 13 PageID# 22791
`
`Dated: January 4, 2021
`
`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 Avenue
`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
`Tel: (212) 326-3939
`Fax: (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, III (VA Bar No. 23613)
`The Law Offices of Charles B. Molster III PLLC
`2141 Wisconsin Ave., N.W., Suite M
`Washington, DC 20007
`Telephone: 703-346-1505
`Email: cmolster@molsterlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.
`and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 13 of 13 PageID# 22792
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on January 4, 2021, the foregoing was served on counsel for
`
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs using
`
`the
`
`following designated
`
`email
`
`address:
`
`pmiedva.lwteam@lw.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 4, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David M Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana (VA Bar No. 42334)
`JONES DAY
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`Telephone: (216) 586-3939
`Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
`Email: dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`