Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 12 PageID# 23072
`
`
`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
`REDACTED
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REYNOLDS’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO
`EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT, OR TESTIMONY RELATING TO INCORRECT
`IMAGES, DIAGRAMS, DRAWINGS, OR DESCRIPTIONS OF THE VUSE ALTO
`CARTRIDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 12 PageID# 23073
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 1
`LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................................... 4
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 4
`I.
`ANY DISCUSSION OR EVIDENCE OF AN INACCURATE DEPICTION OF
`THE VUSE ALTO CARTRIDGE IS IRRELEVANT ...................................................... 4
`ANY DISCUSSION OR EVIDENCE OF AN INACCURATE DEPICTION OF
`THE VUSE ALTO CARTRIDGE WILL CONFUSE THE ISSUES AND
`MISLEAD THE JURY ...................................................................................................... 6
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 7
`
`II.
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 12 PageID# 23074
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Deering Precision Instruments, L.L.C. v. Vector Distribution Sys., Inc.,
`347 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................4
`
`Fabric Selection, Inc. v. NNW Imp., Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-08558-CAS(MRWx), 2018 WL 1779334 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11,
`2018) ..........................................................................................................................................6
`
`Luce v. United States,
`469 U.S. 38 (1984) .....................................................................................................................4
`
`Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.,
`No. 4-17-cv-04405, 2021 WL 2224267 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2021) ............................................6
`
`Rolls-Royce PLC v. United Techs. Corp.,
`No. 1:10CV457, 2011 WL 1740143 (E.D. Va. May 4, 2011) ...................................................4
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271 ................................................................................................................................4
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 103 .............................................................................................................................4
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 .............................................................................................................................4
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 .............................................................................................................................4
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 .............................................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860 Filed 01/21/22 Page 4 of 12 PageID# 23075
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (“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 any evidence or argument relating to incorrect images, diagrams, drawings, or
`
`descriptions of the VUSE Alto cartridge;
`
`; or any testimony relating to
`
`incorrect images, diagrams, drawings, or descriptions of the VUSE Alto cartridge.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`PMP asserts U.S. Patent No. 10,104,911 (the “’911 patent”) against Reynolds’s VUSE
`
`Alto product. Reynolds has sold its VUSE Alto product, which includes a power unit and
`
`disposable liquid-containing cartridges, since August 2018. Ex. 2 at 299:2-8. Reynolds
`
` See id. at 51:20-52:3.
`
`Before this litigation, Reynolds had received
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. at 356:4-7. Believing
`
` to be accurate,
`
`
`
` Id. at 312:18-
`
`314:3. And during fact discovery in this case, on October 16, 2020, Reynolds
`
` (RJREDVA_001281360; RJREDVA_001526194-95),
`
`
`
`
`
` To illustrate the design and structure of the
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860 Filed 01/21/22 Page 5 of 12 PageID# 23076
`
`
`VUSE Alto cartridge as sold, Reynolds also produced other documents and things,
`
`
`
` (RJREDVA_001449207) as well as physical samples of the VUSE Alto
`
`product itself (PPHYS026-PPHYS035).
`
`In February 2021, Reynolds discovered that the
`
`Specifically,
`
`
`
` Ex. 2 at 314:4-20.
`
`
`
` Id.
`
` was pertinent to PMP’s claim for
`
`infringement of the ’911 patent, which requires, in part, a structure having “at least one cavity”
`
`that is “a blind hole.” ’911 patent at 18:18-23. Upon discovering this inaccuracy, Reynolds
`
` and
`
`immediately produced it to PM/Altria (RJREDVA_001642024). Reynolds also immediately
`
`withdrew its identification of the previously-produced
`
` in its interrogatory
`
`responses. See Ex. 5, Reynolds’s 4th Supp. Response to PM/Altria’s Second Set of
`
`Interrogatories (No. 16), served February 19, 2021. In addition, Reynolds designated a corporate
`
`witness, Mr. Eric Hunt, to provide deposition testimony over the course of three hours and
`
`eighteen minutes regarding
`
` Ex. 2 at 297:18-298:9; see
`
`generally id. at 293:2-485:12; Ex. 1. Mr. Hunt testified that
`
`(RJREDVA_001281360; RJREDVA_001526194-95)
`
`(RJREDVA_001642024)
`
`2 at 344:20-346:3, 347:13-18, 351:3-13.
`
`Following Reynolds’s production of
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex.
`
`
`
` the
`
`supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 16, and the additional corporate deposition testimony
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860 Filed 01/21/22 Page 6 of 12 PageID# 23077
`
`
`of Mr. Hunt, the parties agreed to a schedule for supplementing expert reports regarding alleged
`
`infringement of the ’911 patent. By agreement, PMP’s technical expert, Dr. John Abraham,
`
`submitted a Supplemental Opening Report (Ex. 4, “Abraham Supp. Op. Rpt.”) on March 12,
`
`2021, regarding alleged infringement of the ’911 patent by the VUSE Alto product.
`
`Dr. Abraham’s Supplemental Report cited and relied upon “a teardown, analysis, and testing” of
`
`physical samples of the VUSE Alto product, and various Reynolds technical documents. See,
`
`e.g., Abraham Supp. Op. Rpt. at ¶ 2. In terms of
`
`, Dr. Abraham’s Supplemental
`
`Report concerning alleged infringement of the ’911 patent
`
` (RJREDVA_001642024) for the VUSE Alto. None of Dr. Abraham’s infringement
`
`opinions
`
`RJREDVA_001526194-95)
`
` (RJREDVA_001281360;
`
`. See Abraham Supp. Op. Rpt. at ¶¶ 2, 9,
`
`
`
`
`
`11, 17, 25, 33. Indeed, Dr. Abraham’s Supplemental Report acknowledged that Reynolds had
`
`informed PM/Altria that “
`
` (produced at
`
`RJREDVA_001526194-95)
`
`.” Id. at ¶ 7. And in his deposition on May 11,
`
`2021, Dr. Abraham confirmed that the entirety of his opinions regarding alleged infringement of
`
`the ’911 patent by the VUSE Alto product—
`
`
`
`— are contained in his Supplemental Opening Report. Ex. 3 at 69:23-70:3; 72:12-73:2.
`
`PM/Altria’s Trial Exhibit List includes several exhibits which reference information
`
`derived from
`
`, including PX-028 (
`
`
`
`), and PX-122
`
`). The parties met and
`
`conferred on December 10, 2021, but PM/Altria would not agree not to offer evidence and
`
`testimony regarding inaccurate depictions or descriptions of the VUSE Alto to the jury. Any
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860 Filed 01/21/22 Page 7 of 12 PageID# 23078
`
`
`inaccurate depiction of the VUSE Alto is irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case, and
`
`failure to exclude evidence and testimony based on these inaccurate depictions is likely to
`
`confuse the issues and mislead the jury.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The Court’s right 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). Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 103(d) allows a court “to the extent practicable … [to prevent] inadmissible evidence
`
`[from being] suggested to the jury by any means.” Accordingly, preliminarily excluding
`
`evidence via a motion in limine under Rule 103is proper. See, e.g., Rolls-Royce PLC v. United
`
`Techs. Corp., No. 1:10-cv-457, 2011 WL 1740143, at *2 (E.D. Va. May 4, 2011).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`ANY DISCUSSION OR EVIDENCE OF AN INACCURATE DEPICTION OF THE
`VUSE ALTO CARTRIDGE IS IRRELEVANT
`
`Evidence or argument relating to incorrect images, diagrams, drawings, or descriptions of
`
`the VUSE Alto cartridge, including
`
`
`
`, are not relevant to any claim or
`
`defense in this action. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 402, “[i]rrelevant evidence is not
`
`admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402. “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.
`
`PMP has alleged that Reynolds’s VUSE Alto product infringes the ’911 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271. To prove infringement, PMP must show that the VUSE Alto meets each limitation
`
`of the ’911 patent, either literally or by the doctrine of equivalents. Deering Precision
`
`Instruments, L.L.C. v. Vector Distribution Sys., Inc., 347 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Only
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860 Filed 01/21/22 Page 8 of 12 PageID# 23079
`
`
`accurate information about the VUSE Alto device is relevant to the determination of whether the
`
`VUSE Alto meets the limitations of the ’911 patent. A comparison between the undisputedly
`
`inaccurate depiction of the VUSE Alto
`
`
`
` and the limitations of the ’911 patent does not
`
`have a tendency to make Reynolds’ alleged infringement of the ’911 patent any more or less
`
`probable than it would without that comparison.
`
`PMP and its technical expert Dr. Abraham have acknowledged that inaccurate depictions
`
`of the VUSE Alto are not relevant to infringement of the ’911 patent claims, given that
`
`Dr. Abraham based his entire opinion of how the VUSE Alto device allegedly infringes the ’911
`
`patent
`
`. See Abraham
`
`Supp. Op. Rpt. at ¶¶ 2, 9, 11, 17, 25, 33; Ex. 3 at 69:23-70:3, 72:12-73:2.
`
`In the event that PM/Altria intends to introduce inaccurate depictions of the VUSE Alto,
`
`, for the purpose of showing that
`
`
`
`, this purpose is wholly irrelevant and entirely
`
`speculative. The jury in this case is tasked with deciding the questions of validity and
`
`infringement of the ’911 patent, not with deciphering the VUSE Alto’s regulatory status with the
`
`FDA. Nor has PM/Altria offered any basis whatsoever for any argument that
`
`
`
`. Even if evidence or testimony regarding
`
`incorrect images of the VUSE Alto
`
` were somehow determined to be
`
`relevant to PM/Altria’s case, its relevance would be outweighed by the risk of misleading the
`
`jury, and the need for a wasteful, time-consuming mini-trial on the collateral issue of the VUSE
`
`Alto’s regulatory status.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860 Filed 01/21/22 Page 9 of 12 PageID# 23080
`
`
`II.
`
`ANY DISCUSSION OR EVIDENCE OF AN INACCURATE DEPICTION OF
`THE VUSE ALTO CARTRIDGE WILL CONFUSE THE ISSUES AND MISLEAD
`THE JURY
`
`Even if evidence or testimony regarding inaccurate depictions or descriptions of the
`
`VUSE Alto device were somehow relevant, the Court may nevertheless exclude such evidence or
`
`testimony 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. Here, any probative value of
`
`inaccurate depictions or descriptions of the VUSE Alto product would be outweighed by the
`
`danger of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. In patent infringement cases like this
`
`one, courts have excluded evidence where there was a risk that the jury might make an
`
`inaccurate comparison between the asserted patent and something other than the accused
`
`product. See, e.g., Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. 4-17-cv-04405, 2021 WL
`
`2224267, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2021) (excluding evidence of the molecular structures of non-
`
`accused products as they were likely to cause confusion and conflate the patent infringement
`
`issues); see also Fabric Selection, Inc. v. NNW Imp., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-08558, 2018 WL
`
`1779334, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2018) (excluding evidence or argument premised upon an
`
`inaccurate comparison between a copyrighted design and a different photo of that same design,
`
`rather than the accused garment).
`
`Both parties here rely on evidence and testimony showing the accurate design of the
`
`VUSE Alto cartridge to support their claims and defenses regarding the ’911 patent. Even if
`
`used for some purpose other than attempting to prove infringement of the ’911 patent, allowing
`
`evidence and testimony regarding an inaccurate depiction of the VUSE Alto cartridge would
`
`needlessly confuse the issues and mislead the jury. The danger of confusing the issues and
`
`misleading the jury is especially high given that the VUSE Alto depictions in the
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860 Filed 01/21/22 Page 10 of 12 PageID# 23081
`
`
`
` appear similar in nearly all respects
`
`
`
`. Ex. 2 at 312:18-314:3, 330:10-331:9. The two
`
`depictions of the VUSE Alto product look superficially similar and a jury could easily mistake
`
`one for the other. This potential for confusing the issues and misleading the jury outweighs any
`
`possible probative value of depictions of the VUSE Alto
`
`.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Reynolds respectfully requests that the court grant this
`
`motion to exclude any evidence or argument relating to incorrect images, diagrams, drawings, or
`
`descriptions of the VUSE Alto cartridge;
`
`incorrect images, diagrams, drawings, or descriptions of the VUSE Alto cartridge.
`
`; or any testimony relating to
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860 Filed 01/21/22 Page 11 of 12 PageID# 23082
`
`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 860 Filed 01/21/22 Page 12 of 12 PageID# 23083
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`