Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 33 PageID# 23085
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 33 PagelD# 23085
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`EXHIBIT 4
`(PUBLIC)
`(PUBLIC)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 33 PageID# 23086
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`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,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USA INC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTS S.A.,
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT OF JOHN ABRAHAM RELATING TO U.S.
`PATENT NO. 10,104,911
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 33 PageID# 23087
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`THE VUSE ALTO INFRINGES THE ’911 PATENT .......................................................2
`A.
`Claim 1 .....................................................................................................................2
`1.
`“An aerosol generating system for heating a liquid aerosol-forming
`substrate, the system comprising:” ..............................................................2
`“an aerosol-forming chamber; and” .............................................................3
`“leakage prevention means configured to prevent or reduce leakage
`of liquid aerosol condensate from the aerosol generating system,” .............5
`“wherein the leakage prevention means comprises at least one
`cavity in a wall of the aerosol forming chamber, for collecting
`liquid condensate formed from the aerosol forming substrate” ...................9
`“wherein the at least one cavity is a blind hole recessed in the wall
`of the aerosol-forming chamber and has an open end, a closed end,
`and a longitudinal direction extending between the open end and
`the closed end” ...........................................................................................13
`“wherein the at least one cavity has a largest cross-sectional
`dimension x taken along a cross-section of the cavity in a direction
`perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the cavity, where x is
`0.5 mm, or 1 mm, or between 0.5 mm and 1 mm” ....................................17
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................................................21
`1.
`“The aerosol generating system according to claim 1, wherein the
`at least one cavity contains capillary material.” .........................................21
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................................................22
`1.
`“The aerosol generating system according to claim 1, further
`comprising a liquid storage portion for storing the liquid aerosol-
`forming substrate.” .....................................................................................22
`Claim 10 .................................................................................................................23
`1.
`“The aerosol generating system according to claim 1, further
`comprising a capillary wick for conveying the liquid aerosol-
`forming substrate by capillary action.” ......................................................23
`Claim 11 .................................................................................................................24
`1.
`“The aerosol generating system according to claim 1, wherein the
`aerosol generating system is electrically operated and further
`comprises an electric heater for heating the liquid aerosol-forming
`substrate.”...................................................................................................24
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 4 of 33 PageID# 23088
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`F.
`
`Claim 12 .................................................................................................................25
`1.
`“The aerosol generating system according to claim 1, wherein the
`leakage prevention means comprises two cavities in the wall of the
`aerosol-forming chamber.” ........................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 5 of 33 PageID# 23089
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an expert by counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs in connection
`
`with the above-captioned lawsuit to provide my analyses and conclusions on certain technical
`
`aspects of this dispute.1
`
`2.
`
`I understand that my opening expert report was served on February 24, 2021. I
`
`provide this supplemental report with additional opinions related to infringement of claims 1, 2, 9,
`
`10, 11, and 12 in the ’911 patent by RJR’s VUSE Alto. These additional infringement opinions
`
`were necessitated by
`
`supplementation of their non-infringement contentions on March 5, 2021
`
` and
`
`
`
`. See RJREDVA_001642024-27; see also RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Mar.
`
`5, 2021) at 63-64; RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 16 (Mar. 5, 2021) at 15. In view of
`
`
`
` and new non-infringement contentions, I also considered a teardown, analysis, and
`
`testing of the Alto. See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000001-DEF_PUB_EDVA500000133. I have
`
`attached as Exhibit A a list of materials considered for this supplemental report. I also considered
`
`the documents cited in my report, even if they do not appear in Exhibit A.
`
`3.
`
`I reserve the right to provide additional opinions based on any additional
`
`information or discovery that may be provided. I further reserve the right to amend, modify, or
`
`supplement my opinions based on my further investigation, any Court orders, agreements between
`
`the parties, and additional evidence submitted by either party after the date of this Report including,
`
`but not limited to, additional discovery regarding the ’911 Accused Products. I also reserve the
`
`right to rely on demonstratives and demonstrations at trial.
`
`
`1 I understand that RJR’s infringement claims are currently stayed in this litigation, and thus I
`will refer to Philip Morris as “Plaintiff” and RJR as “Defendants” in this Report.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 6 of 33 PageID# 23090
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`THE VUSE ALTO INFRINGES THE ’911 PATENT
`
`
`II.
`
`4.
`
`A.
`
`As explained below, the VUSE Alto literally infringes the ’911 Patent.2
`
`Claim 1
`1.
`
`“An aerosol generating system for heating a liquid aerosol-forming
`substrate, the system comprising:”
`
`5.
`
`I understand that the phrase “[a]n aerosol generating system for heating a liquid
`
`aerosol-forming substrate” is the preamble to claim 1. I further understand that neither party
`
`contends, and the Court did not construe, the preamble of claim 1 as limiting. Consequently, I
`
`understand that it is not necessary for me to find that the VUSE Alto includes “[a]n aerosol
`
`generating system for heating a liquid aerosol-forming substrate” to reach a conclusion that RJR
`
`infringes claim 1 of the ’911 Patent.
`
`6.
`
`To the extent the preamble is limiting, the VUSE Alto literally meets this limitation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` RJREDVA_001450878-
`
`RJREDVA_001451243 at RJREDVA_001450892-93.
`
`7.
`
`With respect to
`
`RJREDVA_001526194-95),
`
` (produced at
`
`, RJR argued that the Alto is
`
`not an “aerosol generating system for heating a liquid aerosol-forming substrate” as recited in
`
`claim 1 of the ’911 Patent. See RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Dec. 2, 2020) at 69. To the extent
`
`RJR still contends these arguments provide a basis for non-infringement, I disagree. RJR’s
`
`argument appears to be entirely based on its argument that the Alto does not meet other limitations
`
`
`2 To the extent RJR argues that there is no literal infringement by the Alto, I expressly reserve
`the right to supplement this Report with my opinions on why the Alto infringes under the
`doctrine of equivalents.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 7 of 33 PageID# 23091
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`of claim 1. Id. at 9-11, 23-26, 49-82. RJR does not identify any independent reason why the Alto
`
`does not meet the preamble. For the reasons explained below, the Alto meets each limitation
`
`recited in claim 1 and therefore is an “aerosol generating system for heating a liquid aerosol-
`
`forming substrate.”
`
`2.
`
`“an aerosol-forming chamber; and”
`
`8.
`
`The VUSE Alto literally meets this limitation because
`
`.
`
`9.
`
`. I show an illustration
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` and from my
`
`teardown of
`
`the Alto.
`
` See RJREDVA_001642024; DEF_PUB_EDVA500000034;
`
`RJREDVA_001450878-RJREDVA_001451243 at RJREDVA_001450892-93. RJR does not
`
`dispute that the Alto meets this limitation. See generally RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Dec. 2,
`
`2020); see also RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Mar. 5, 2021).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 8 of 33 PageID# 23092
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 8 of 33 PagelD# 23092
`
`RESTRICTED — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`See RIREDVA_001642024 (annotated).
`
`See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000034 (annotated).
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 9 of 33 PageID# 23093
`
`RESTRICTED — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`3.
`
`“leakage prevention means configured to prevent or reduce leakage of
`liquid aerosol condensate from the aerosol generating system,”
`
`10.
`
`The VUSE Alto literally meets this limitation because it
`
`includes a leakage
`
`prevention means configured to prevent or reduce leakage of liquid aerosol condensate fromthe
`
`aerosol generating system.
`
`As shownin the below imagesPo and my teardown
`11.
`analysis ofthe Alto, the$c
`
`Es See RIREDVA_001642024; DEF_PUB_EDVA500000034. See also
`
`RJREDVA_001285356-RJREDVA_001285368
`
`at
`
`RJREDVA_001285367;
`
`RJREDVA_001449196-RIREDVA_001449208 at RIREDVA_001449207.
`
`RJRITC_001360053-RJRITC_001360418 at RJRITC_001360084-85.
`
`See RJREDVA_001642024 (annotated).
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 10 of 33 PageID# 23094
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000034 (annotated).
`12.
`I performed several tests on the Alto, including using the assembled product to vape
`
`the aerosol and disassembling the finished product to analyze its internal components. To
`
`disassemble the Alto cartridge, I used a razor blade to cut through a cross-section of the Alto
`
`cartridge
`
`. Upon examination of the cartridge under the microscope,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEF_PUB_EDVA500000006;
`
`DEF_PUB_EDVA500000001;
`
`RJREDVA_001450878-RJREDVA_001451243 at RJREDVA_001450909. This testing further
`
`supports my opinion that
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 11 of 33 PageID# 23095
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 11 of 33 PagelD# 23095
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`RESTRICTED — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`condensate
`
`See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000006 (annotated).
`See DEFPUB_EDVA500000006(annotated).
`
`liquid aerosol
`
`See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000001 (annotated).
`See DEFPUB_EDVAS500000001 (annotated).
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 12 of 33 PageID# 23096
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`13.
`
`In addition to the testing described above, I also injected e-liquid
`
`
`
`after slicing open the cartridge, as shown in the image below. DEF_PUB_EDVA500000096. I
`
`then
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000096 (annotated).
`
`14.
`
`RJR argues that the Alto does not include a “leakage prevention means configured
`
`to prevent or reduce leakage of liquid aerosol condensate from the aerosol generating system,” as
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 13 of 33 PageID# 23097
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`recited in claim 1 of the ’911 Patent. See RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Dec. 2, 2020) at 69-70. See
`
`also RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Mar. 5, 2021) at 64. I disagree. RJR does not provide any
`
`support for this conclusory statement (see, e.g., RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Dec. 2, 2020) at 9-
`
`11, 23-26, 49-82), which I disagree with for the reasons provided herein.
`
`15.
`
`I also understand that RJR agreed that this term does not require a means-plus-
`
`function construction and, thus, the Court did not construe this limitation as a means-plus-function
`
`limitation. Accordingly, I understand that this argument does not provide a basis for non-
`
`infringement of the ’911 Patent for any ’911 Accused Product.
`
`4.
`
`“wherein the leakage prevention means comprises at least one cavity
`in a wall of the aerosol forming chamber, for collecting liquid
`condensate formed from the aerosol forming substrate”
`
`16.
`
`As explained below, the VUSE Alto literally meets this limitation because it
`
`includes a “leakage prevention means [that] comprises at least one cavity in a wall of the aerosol
`
`forming chamber, for collecting liquid condensate formed from the aerosol forming substrate.”
`
`17.
`
`As shown in the images
`
`
`
` and my teardown analysis of the Alto, the Alto includes “a leakage prevention means
`
`[that] comprises at least one cavity in a wall of the aerosol forming chamber, for collecting liquid
`
`condensate
`
`formed
`
`from
`
`the aerosol
`
`forming
`
`substrate.”
`
` RJREDVA_001642024;
`
`DEF_PUB_EDVA500000034. See also RJREDVA_001285356-RJREDVA_001285368 at
`
`RJREDVA_001285367;
`
`RJREDVA_001449196-RJREDVA_001449208
`
`RJREDVA_001449207.
`
`at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
` RJRITC_001360053-
`
`RJRITC_001360418 at RJRITC_001360084-85. Further,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 14 of 33 PageID# 23098
`
`RESTRICTED — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`RJRITC_001360084.
`
`Id. at
`
`2REDVA001642024; DEF_PUB_EDVA500000034.
`
`RJREDVA_001642024 (annotated).
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 15 of 33 PageID# 23099
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000034 (annotated).
`18.
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RJREDVA_001450914-15.
`
` RJREDVA_001450878-RJREDVA_001451243 at
`
`
`
` Thus, the Alto includes
`
`“a leakage prevention means [that] comprises at least one cavity in a wall of the aerosol forming
`
`chamber, for collecting liquid condensate formed from the aerosol forming substrate,” under the
`
`plain meaning of those terms.
`
`19.
`
`RJR argues that the Alto does not include a “leakage prevention means [that]
`
`comprises at least one cavity in a wall of the aerosol forming chamber, for collecting liquid
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 16 of 33 PageID# 23100
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`condensate formed from the aerosol forming substrate.” See RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Dec. 2,
`
`2020) at 70-71. See also RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Mar. 5, 2021) at 64.
`
` (produced at RJREDVA_001526194-95),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`71.
`
`
`
`RJREDVA_001642024-27),
`
` RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Dec. 2, 2020) at 70-
`
`
`
`(produced at
`
`
`
` See RJR’s
`
`Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Mar. 5, 2021) at 64. To the extent RJR still contends these arguments
`
`provide a basis for non-infringement, I disagree for several reasons, which are discussed in turn
`
`below.
`
`20.
`
`First, as I have explained above, the Alto does include cavities “in a wall of the
`
`aerosol-forming chamber, for collecting liquid condensate formed from the aerosol-forming
`
`substrate.”
`
`21.
`
`Second, as I have explained above,
`
`
`
`22.
`
`Third, even assuming that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` as RJR appears to contend,
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 17 of 33 PageID# 23101
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
` RJRITC_001360053-RJRITC_001360418 at RJRITC_001360084-85.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase “in a wall of the aerosol-forming
`
`chamber” supports my opinion and contradicts RJR’s argument. In my analysis above (and
`
`consistent with the Court’s claim construction order), I have applied the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the claimed cavity “in a wall of the aerosol-forming chamber” and the specification of
`
`the ’911 Patent is in accord. Figures 3-4 of the ’911 Patent, for example, show aerosol-forming
`
`chamber 127 extending up to cavities 305, 307 near air outlet 125. A POSITA reviewing Figures
`
`3-4 of the ’911 Patent would understand that aerosol-forming chamber 127 would extend from air
`
`outlet 125 at least down to the space where heater 119 is wrapped around capillary wick 117 (as
`
`shown in Figure 1 of the ’911 Patent) because Figures 3-4 only show mouthpiece end 103 of the
`
`aerosol generating system.
`
`5.
`
`“wherein the at least one cavity is a blind hole recessed in the wall of
`the aerosol-forming chamber and has an open end, a closed end, and a
`longitudinal direction extending between the open end and the closed
`end”
`
`24.
`
`As explained below, the VUSE Alto literally meets this limitation because it
`
`includes “at least one cavity [that] is a blind hole recessed in the wall of the aerosol-forming
`
`chamber and [that] has an open end, a closed end, and a longitudinal direction extending between
`
`the open end and the closed end.”
`
`25.
`
`As shown in the images
`
` and my teardown
`
`of the VUSE Alto, the Alto includes “at least one cavity [that] is a blind hole recessed in the wall
`
`of the aerosol forming chamber and [that] has an open end, a closed end, and a longitudinal
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 18 of 33 PageID# 23102
`
`RESTRICTED — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`direction extending between the open end and the closed end.”
`
`RJREDVA_001642024;
`
`DEFPUB_EDVAS500000034; DEFPUBEDVA500000030.
`
`See also RJRITC_001360053-
`
`RJRITC_001360418 at RIRITC_001360084-85; RIREDVA_001285356-RJREDVA_001285368
`
`at
`
`RJREDVA_001285367;
`
`RJREDVA_001449196-RJREDVA_001449208
`
`at
`
`RJREDVA_001449207. As showninthe images below,Po
`
`RJREDVA_001642024 (annotated).
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 19 of 33 PageID# 23103
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000034 (annotated).
`
`
`
`
`
`See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000030 (annotated).
`26.
`
`RJREDVA_001526194-95),
`
` (produced at
`
`, RJR argued the Alto does
`
`not include “at least one cavity [that] is a blind hole recessed in the wall of the aerosol-forming
`
`chamber and [that] has an open end, a closed end, and a longitudinal direction extending between
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 20 of 33 PageID# 23104
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 20 of 33 PagelD# 23104
`
`RESTRICTED — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`the open end and the closed end,” as claimed. See RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Dec. 2, 2020)at
`
`a 7
`
`1. Further, RJR argued that the Alto cavities do not constitute “blind holes” because “the 911
`
`Patent specification expressly distinguishes betweena ‘blind hole’ (col. 10:34-12:6; FIGS. 3-4)
`
`and a ‘blind cavity’ (col. 12:7-19; FIGS. 5-6), and the Applicants specifically amended the claims
`
`to require that the at least one cavity be a ‘blind hole.’” Jd.P|
`po (produced at RIREDVA_001642024-27), RJR furtherstates the following:
`
`
`
`See RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No.
`
`1 (Mar. 5, 2021) at 65. To the extent RJR still contends these
`
`arguments provide a basis for non-infringement, I disagree with RJR’s arguments for several
`
`reasons.
`
`27.
`
`First, as explained above, the Alto does have “at least one cavity [that] is a blind
`
`hole recessed in the wall of the aerosol-forming chamberand [that] has an open end,a closed end,
`
`and a longitudinal direction extending between the open end and the closed end,” as claimed.
`
`RJR’s statements to the contrary are conclusory.
`
`28.
`
`Second, the Alto cavities are “recessed in the wall of the aerosol-forming chamber”
`
`for the same reasons the Alto cavities are “in a wall of the aerosol-forming chamber,”as I explained
`
`in paragraphs[19]-[23] above.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 21 of 33 PageID# 23105
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`29.
`
`Third, RJR’s argument that the claimed blind hole does not encompass the
`
`embodiments shown in FIGS. 5-6 of the ’911 Patent is not relevant to my infringement opinions
`
`for the Alto. Moreover, RJR’s argument is incorrect for several reasons. The Court rejected this
`
`same argument when refusing to construe “blind hole” as a “hole that does not extend to the outside
`
`of the aerosol generating system” and, instead, held that this term should receive its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. In my opinion, a POSITA would understand the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of a “blind hole” to encompass the embodiment shown in FIGS. 3-4 and FIGS. 5-6. My opinion
`
`is supported by the specification of the ’911 Patent. For example, dependent claim 13 of the ’911
`
`Patent requires that “at least one cavity in the wall of the aerosol-forming chamber [have] a toroidal
`
`shape.” Because dependent claims must be narrower than the independent claims from which they
`
`depend, it is appropriate to read the “blind hole” language recited in claim 1 to cover the
`
`embodiments shown in FIGS. 5-6.
`
`30.
`
`The file history of the ’911 Patent also shows that the claim term “blind hole”
`
`encompasses Figures 5 and 6 of the ’911 Patent. See DEF_PUB_EDVA000015567-
`
`DEF_PUB_EDVA000016366 (’911 Patent file history) at DEF_PUB_EDVA000016296.
`
`6.
`
`“wherein the at least one cavity has a largest cross-sectional
`dimension x taken along a cross-section of the cavity in a direction
`perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the cavity, where x is 0.5
`mm, or 1 mm, or between 0.5 mm and 1 mm”
`
`31.
`
`The VUSE Alto literally meets this limitation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See RJRITC_001360053-RJRITC_001360418 at RJRITC_001360084-85;
`
`RJREDVA_001285356-RJREDVA_001285368
`
`at
`
`RJREDVA_001285367;
`
`RJREDVA_001449196-RJREDVA_001449208 at RJREDVA_001449207.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 22 of 33 PageID# 23106
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`32.
`
`As shown in the image below from my teardown of the Alto,
`
` See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000018.
`
`See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000018 (annotated).
`
`33. While viewing the Alto cavities under a microscope,
`
`DEF_PUB_EDVA500000010.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 23 of 33 PageID# 23107
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
` RJREDVA_001642024.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000010 (annotated).
`
`34.
`
`The Alto literally meets the limitation that recites “wherein the at least one cavity
`
`has a largest cross-sectional dimension x taken along a cross-section of the cavity in a direction
`
`perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the cavity, where x is 0.5 mm, or 1 mm, or between
`
`0.5 mm and 1 mm.”
`
`35.
`
`RJR argues the Alto does not include “at least one cavity [that] has a largest cross
`
`sectional dimension x taken along a cross section of the cavity in a direction perpendicular to the
`
`longitudinal direction of the cavity, where x is 0.5 mm, or 1 mm, or between 0.5 mm and 1 mm,”
`
`as claimed. See RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Dec. 2, 2020) at 71-73; see also RJR’s Resp. to
`
`Interr. No. 1 (Mar. 5, 2021) at 65.
`
`(produced at RJREDVA_001526194-95),
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 24 of 33 PageID# 23108
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Dec. 2, 2020) at 72. Further, RJR argued that
`
`Philip Morris has not accurately measured the “largest cross-sectional dimension x”
`
`73. Finally, RJR also argued that
`
` Id. at 72-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. at 73.
`
`To the extent RJR still contends these arguments provide a basis for non-infringement, I disagree
`
`with RJR’s arguments for several reasons.
`
`36.
`
`First, as I have explained above, the Alto includes “at least one cavity [that] has a
`
`largest cross sectional dimension x taken along a cross section of the cavity in a direction
`
`perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the cavity, where x is 0.5 mm, or 1 mm, or between
`
`0.5 mm and 1 mm,” as claimed. RJR’s statements to the contrary are conclusory.
`
`37.
`
`Second, based on my teardown analysis of the Alto, the Alto literally meets the
`
`claimed range for the “largest cross-sectional dimension x” (i.e., “x is 0.5 mm, or 1 mm, or between
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 25 of 33 PageID# 23109
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`0.5 mm and 1 mm”). See RJREDVA_001642024. Third, I further disagree with RJR’s contention
`
`that the claimed “largest cross-sectional dimension x” should be doubled from my measurements
`
`for the Alto. The specification of the ’911 Patent supports my interpretation of the claimed “largest
`
`cross-sectional dimension x” because it shows and describes what the claimed largest cross-
`
`sectional x dimension means. See ’911 Patent at Figures 3-4, 11:26-35. This description informed
`
`my opinion as to the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed largest cross-sectional dimension
`
`x and I have applied that meaning in reaching my infringement opinions. Id. For this reason,
`
`RJR’s calculation of the “largest cross-sectional dimension x” is incorrect.
`
`B.
`
`Claim 2
`1.
`
`“The aerosol generating system according to claim 1, wherein the at
`least one cavity contains capillary material.”
`
`38.
`
`As shown in the below image from my teardown of the Alto,
`
`
`
`
`
`DEF_PUB_EDVA500000034. See also RJREDVA_001450878-RJREDVA_001451243 at
`
`RJREDVA_001450909;
`
`
`
`RJREDVA_001285356-RJREDVA_001285368
`
`at
`
`RJREDVA_001285357,
`
`RJREDVA_001285368;
`
`RJREDVA_001449196-
`
`RJREDVA_001449208 at RJREDVA_001449197, RJREDVA_001449208.
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 26 of 33 PageID# 23110
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000034 (annotated).
`
`C.
`
`Claim 9
`1.
`
`“The aerosol generating system according to claim 1, further
`comprising a liquid storage portion for storing the liquid aerosol-
`forming substrate.”
`
`39.
`
`The Alto further comprises a liquid storage portion for storing the liquid aerosol-
`
`forming substrate.
`
`40.
`
`The Alto further comprises a liquid storage portion
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` DEF_PUB_EDVA500000109.
`
`
`
`See
`
`also RJREDVA_001450878-
`
`RJREDVA_001451243 at RJREDVA_001450892-93. RJR does not dispute that this limitation is
`
`met by the Alto. See generally RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Dec. 2, 2020).
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 27 of 33 PageID# 23111
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000109 (annotated).
`
`
`
`Claim 10
`1.
`
`“The aerosol generating system according to claim 1, further
`comprising a capillary wick for conveying the liquid aerosol-forming
`substrate by capillary action.”
`
`D.
`
`41.
`
`
`
`
`
` DEF_PUB_EDVA500000130.
`
`See also RJREDVA_001450878-RJREDVA_001451243 at RJREDVA_001450911. RJR does
`
`not dispute that this limitation is met by the Alto. See generally RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Dec.
`
`2, 2020).
`
`23
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 28 of 33 PageID# 23112
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000130 (annotated).
`
`Claim 11
`1.
`
`“The aerosol generating system according to claim 1, wherein the
`aerosol generating system is electrically operated and further
`comprises an electric heater for heating the liquid aerosol-forming
`substrate.”
`
`E.
`
`42.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` DEF_PUB_EDVA500000129.
`
` See also
`
`RJREDVA_001450878-RJREDVA_001451243
`
`RJREDVA_001285356-RJREDVA_001285368
`
`at
`
`at
`
`RJREDVA_001450911;
`
`RJREDVA_001285357,
`
`RJREDVA_001285359;
`
`RJREDVA_001449196-RJREDVA_001449208
`
`at
`
`RJREDVA_001449197, RJREDVA_001449199. RJR does not dispute that this limitation is met
`
`by the Alto. See generally RJR’s Resp. to Interr. No. 1 (Dec. 2, 2020).
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 29 of 33 PageID# 23113
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000129 (annotated).
`
`F.
`
`Claim 12
`1.
`
`“The aerosol generating system according to claim 1, wherein the
`leakage prevention means comprises two cavities in the wall of the
`aerosol-forming chamber.”
`
`43.
`
`As shown in the below image from my teardown of the Alto,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` DEF_PUB_EDVA500000034.
`
`
`
`See
`
`also
`
`RJREDVA_001285356-
`
`RJREDVA_001285368
`
`at
`
`RJREDVA_001285367;
`
`RJREDVA_001449196-
`
`RJREDVA_001449208 at RJREDVA_001449207.
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 30 of 33 PageID# 23114
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 30 of 33 PagelD# 23114
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`RESTRICTED — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`i
`
`:
`
`=
`
`4
`
`leakage prevention
`means(cavity)
`
`jj
`
`aerosol forming chamber
`— neal 1
`
`leakage prevention on
`means (cavity)
`
`
`
`See DEF_PUB_EDVA500000034 (annotated).
`See DEFPUB_EDVA500000034 (annotated).
`
`26
`26
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 31 of 33 PageID# 23115
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the
`
`foregoing statements are true and correct.
`
`
`
`DATED: March 12, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. John Abraham
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 32 of 33 PageID# 23116
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 32 of 33 PagelD# 23116
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 33 of 33 PageID# 23117
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 860-2 Filed 01/21/22 Page 33 of 33 PagelD# 23117
`
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT OF JOHN ABRAHAM
`RELATING TO U.S. PATENT No. 10,104,911
`
`Description
`Discovery Materials & Court Filings
`December2, 2020: Plaintiffs' Sixteenth Supplemental
`Responses to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories
`os. 1-2
`March5, 2021: Plaintiffs' Sixteenth Supplemental
`Responses to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories (No.
`
`Bates Begin Number
`
`1 N
`
`ovember 16, 2020: Deposition Transcript of Eric Hunt
`and Exhibits
`Patents & Related Documents
`U.S. Patent No. 10,104,911
`DEF_PUB_EDVA000025700-
`DEF PUB EDVA000025714
`DEFPUB_EDVA000015567-
`DEF PUB EDVA000016366
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,104,911 File History
`
`BOM TF-16, 4/21/2016 and technical drawings
`
`Public and Production Documents
`Photos of teardown and analysis of the Alto
`DEFPUB_EDVAS500000001-
`DEF PUB EDVA500000133
`RJREDVA_001285356-
`RJREDVA_ 001285368
`RJREDVA_001449196-
`BOM TF-16, 4/21/2016 and technical drawings
`RJREDVA_001449208
`Scientific Studies and Analyses RAI Services Company
`
`RJREDVA_001450878- Vuse Alto PMTAs
`
`BAT ASM 1 ALTO.STEP
`ALTO Cartridge.STEP
`
`asm.stp
`3D _tfl6-whq
`CAD TF16 dwg
`CAD TF16 dwg
`CAD TF16 dwg
`Scientific Studies and Analyses RAI Services Company
`Vuse Alto PMTAs
`
`RJREDVA 001451243
`RJREDVA 001526194
`
`RJRITC_001360053-
`RJRITC 001360418
`
`
`
`