Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-3 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 22802
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-3 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 9 PagelD# 22802
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT3
`(PUBLIC)
`(PUBLIC)
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-3 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 9 PagelD# 22802
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT3
`(PUBLIC)
`(PUBLIC)
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-3 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID# 22803
`CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`Civil No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`
`
`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.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. TRAVIS BLALOCK REGARDING
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,803,545 AND 10,420,374
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated ________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Travis N. Blalock
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-3 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID# 22804
`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION — SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`158. As demonstrated vyi and Mr. McAlexander’s ownanalysis, the
`
`VUSE Vibeae
`
`GM. Accordingly, the VUSE Vibe doesnotinfringe claims 16 and 22-25 of the ’374 Patent.
`
`XI.
`
`THIRD-PARTY PRODUCTS
`
`159.
`
`[have also beenasked to provide my opinions and analysis regarding whether
`
`two third-party products, the JUUL and MarkTenElite, practice the asserted claims ofthe ’545
`
`Patent. It is my opinionthat both of those products practice one or more of the asserted claims of
`
`the °545 Patent to the extent that the Reynolds Accused VUSE Products do.
`
`160. Mr. McAlexanderopines that the JUUL and MarkTenElite products each
`
`practiced one or more asserted claims of the ’545 Patent, based on his review ofiii
`
`es. (McAlexanderReportat §§ 681-682).
`
`I have reviewedJ
`
`61
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-3 Filed 01/21/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID# 22805
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`. Based on my independent review of
`
`, I conclude that
`
`the JUUL and MarkTen Elite each practiced one or more asserted claims of the ’545 Patent to
`
`the extent that the Accused VUSE Products do.
`
`161. For example, as Mr. McAlexander notes in his report,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (JUUL: RJREDVA_001271814-1877 at RJREDVA_001271842,
`
`RJREDVA_001271845-1846, RJREDVA_001271853-1854, RJREDVA_001271858-1870;
`
`RJREDVA_001271556-1566 at RJREDVA_001271557-1564; RJREDVA_001271567-1599 at
`
`RJREDVA_001271568, RJREDVA_001271584. MarkTen: RJREDVA_000948368 at
`
`RJREDVA_000948369-8372.)
`
`162.
`
`
`
` (RJREDVA_001271814-1877 at RJREDVA 001271843.)
`
`(Id. at RJREDVA 001271818.)
`
`
`
` (Id. at RJREDVA
`
`001271853-1854.) JUUL’s website also confirms the battery is lithium ion.4 A web search of
`
`the number listed on the battery, 451248, shows the same battery and further confirms the battery
`
`
`4 https://support.juul.com/s/article/What-kind-of-battery-is-in-the-device-
`UnitedStates#:~:text=JUUL%20uses%20a%20lithium%2Dion,under%20hot%20or%20cold%20conditions
`
`
`
`62
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-3 Filed 01/21/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID# 22806
`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION — SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`sitio onas
`2 RED.
`
`po (Id. at RIREDVA 001271858-1859.) The battery is shown below:
`
`(id. at RIREDVA 001271854.)
`
`RE 6.21 22eDvA 001271843,
`
`63
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-3 Filed 01/21/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID# 22807
`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION — SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`as
`I 12. EDVA
`
`(Id. at RIREDVA 001271867.)
`
`6
`EEE (RIREDVA000948368 at RIREDVA_000948369.)
`
`a a
`
`t RIREDVA_000948370.) The battery and heating element are shown below.
`
`64
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-3 Filed 01/21/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID# 22808
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`(Id. at RJREDVA_000948368, RJREDVA_000948370.) A web search for EVE 10440 confirms
`
`the battery is lithium ion.6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at RJREDVA_000948369.)
`
` (Id.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at RJREDVA_000948370.)
`
`165. While I disagree with Mr. McAlexander’s opinion that the Accused VUSE
`
`Products meet the “controller” limitation of claim 1 of the ’545 Patent, the JUUL and MarkTen
`
`Elite would meet that limitation if the Reynolds Accused VUSE Products did. Thus, it is my
`
`opinion that the JUUL and MarkTen Elite products practice claim 1 of the ’545 Patent to the
`
`extent that the Reynolds Accused VUSE Products do.
`
`
`6 https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Rechargeable-li-ion-AAA-AAAA-
`lithium 62327268229 html?spm=a2700.pc countrysearch main07.10.d76e2e75LFLV2q
`65
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-3 Filed 01/21/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID# 22809
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`166. Similarly, the JUUL product contains
`
`, and the MarkTen Elite
`
`
`
`
`
`While I disagree with Mr. McAlexander’s opinion that the VUSE Alto and Ciro meet the
`
`limitation of claim 7 of the ’545 Patent, the JUUL and MarkTen Elite would meet that
`
`limitations if the Reynolds Accused VUSE Products did. Thus, it is my opinion that the JUUL
`
`and MarkTen Elite products practice claim 7 of the ’545 Patent to the extent that the Reynolds
`
`Accused VUSE Products do.
`
`167. Mr. McAlexander opines that the MarkTen and MarkTen XL products also
`
`practiced one or more asserted claims of the ’545 Patent. (McAlexander Report at ¶ 682.) In my
`
`opinion, Mr. McAlexander’s analysis is unsound because it is based entirely on evidence
`
`describing the MarkTen Elite product. I am not aware of any evidence produced in this case that
`
`describes the relevant characteristics of the MarkTen or MarkTen XL products, and Mr.
`
`McAlexander cites none. Nor am I aware of any evidence that says the MarkTen and MarkTen
`
`XL are identical to the MarkTen Elite for purposes of the ’545 Patent. Mr. McAlexander merely
`
`states that he is “not aware of any evidence indicating that MarkTen is not representative of
`
`MarkTen Elite and MarkTen XL for purposes of the ’545 Patent claims,” citing deposition
`
`testimony from Eric Hawes, an Altria witness, who testified that the MarkTen and MarkTen XL
`
`had certain similarities. But the testimony Mr. McAlexander cites does not even refer to the
`
`MarkTen Elite. (See, e.g., Deposition Tr. of Eric Hawes, Dated Dec. 4, 2020 at 35:6-36:7.) At
`
`best, Mr. Hawes’s testimony supports an inference that the MarkTen and MarkTen XL are
`
`similar to each other. It does not support an inference that those two are the same as the
`
`
`
`66
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 846-3 Filed 01/21/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID# 22810
`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION — SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`MarkTen Elite. Thus, I do not agree that Mr. Hawes’s testimony provides a sufficient basis to
`
`conclude the MarkTen and MarkTen XL practiced the ’545 Patent.
`
`XII ANALYSIS RELEVANT TO DAMAGES
`
`a
`
`169.
`
`170.
`
`nN ~—l
`
`
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
