Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 952-7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 26456
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 952-7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 11 PagelD# 26456
`
`EXHIBIT 7(cid:3)
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 952-7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 11 PageID# 26457
`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 ________________________
`3/24/21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Travis N. Blalock
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 952-7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 3 of 11 PageID# 26458
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`IV. 
`V. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 2 
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................ 2 
`Legal Standard For Infringement .................................................................................. 3 
`Dependent Claims ......................................................................................................... 5 
`Indirect Infringement .................................................................................................... 5 
`BASES OF OPINIONS AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED .......................................... 6 
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 6 
`The Accused VUSE Products Do Not Infringe The ’545 Patent .................................. 6 
`A. 
`The Accused VUSE Products Do Not Infringe The ’374 Patent .................................. 7 
`B. 
`Third-Party Products ..................................................................................................... 8 
`D. 
`Analysis Relevant To Damages .................................................................................... 8 
`E. 
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS ............................................................................................. 9 
`VI. 
`’545 Patent .................................................................................................................... 9 
`A. 
`’374 Patent .................................................................................................................. 12 
`B. 
`VII.  TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 15 
`A. 
`’545 Patent .................................................................................................................. 15 
`Lithium Ion Batteries ............................................................................................ 15 
`(i) 
`Power Regulation .................................................................................................. 15 
`(ii) 
`(iii)  Background Of The ’545 Patent ........................................................................... 18 
`VIII.  SUMMARY OF THE ACCUSED VUSE PRODUCTS .................................................. 20 
`A. 
`VUSE Alto .................................................................................................................. 20 
`B. 
`VUSE Solo .................................................................................................................. 22 
`C. 
`VUSE Vibe ................................................................................................................. 24 
`D. 
`VUSE Ciro .................................................................................................................. 27 
`IX. 
`THE ACCUSED VUSE PRODUCTS DO NOT INFRINGE THE ASSERTED
`CLAIMS OF THE ’545 PATENT .................................................................................... 29 
`The Accused VUSE Products Do Not Use PWM To Protect The Battery ................. 29 
`VUSE Alto ............................................................................................................ 31 
`(i) 
`VUSE Solo ............................................................................................................ 32 
`(ii) 
`(iii)  VUSE Vibe ........................................................................................................... 33 
`
`A. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 952-7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 4 of 11 PageID# 26459
`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`(iv) VUSE Ciro ............................................................................................................ 34
`
`(v)
`
`None Of The Controllers Use PWM To "Prevent Damage" To The
`Lithium Ion Power Source .................................................................................... 35
`
`B.
`
`The Accused VUSE Alto And Solo Do Not Include A Lithium Ion Power
`Somce With Short Circuit Protection ......................................................................... 38
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`VUSE Alto ............................................................................................................ 39
`
`VUSE Ciro ............................................................................................................ 40
`
`X.
`
`THE ACCUSED VUSE PRODUCTS DO NOT INFRINGE THE ASSERTED
`CLAIMS OF THE '374 PATENT .................................................................................... 41
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Accused VUSE Products Do Not Meet The "Capacitor" Limitation Of
`All Asserted Claims .................................................................................................... 41
`
`The Accused VUSE Products Are Not Configured To Detect A Blowing
`Action As Required By Claims 1, 24, And 25 Of The '374 Patent.. .......................... 47
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`(iii)
`
`Claim 1 Of The '374 Patent .................................................................................. 47
`
`Claim 24 Of The '374 Patent ................................................................................ 51
`
`Claim 25 Of The '374 Patent.. .............................................................................. 52
`
`C.
`
`The VUSE Alto, Solo, And Vibe Do Not Meet The "Controller" Requirement
`Of Claims 16, And 22-25 Of The '374 Patent ............................................................ 55
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`The Controller Claim Limitations ......................................................................... 55
`
`VUSE Alto ............................................................................................................ 57
`
`(iii) VUSE Solo ............................................................................................................ 58
`
`(iv) VUSE Vibe ........................................................................................................... 60
`THIRD-PARTYPRODUCTS .......................................................................................... 61
`
`XL
`
`XII. ANALYSIS RELEVANT TO DAMAGES ...................................................................... 67
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`. ........................................................................................................................ 69
`
`The Alleged Technical Value Of The '545 Patent Is Primarily Attributable
`To The Prior Ali .................................................................................................... 70
`
`............ 67
`
`Pmp01ied Benefits Of The '37 4 Patent ....................................................................... 77
`
`........................... 74
`
`................ 75
`
`XIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 79
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 952-7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 5 of 11 PageID# 26460
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`My name is Travis Blalock. I am an electrical engineer and Associate Professor
`
`in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Virginia. I
`
`submit this report at the request of counsel for RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds
`
`Vapor Company (“Reynolds”) to offer my opinions concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 6,803,545 (“the
`
`’545 Patent”) and 10,420,374 (“the ’374 Patent”), which are assigned to Altria Client Services
`
`LLC (“Altria”), as well as the February 24, 2021 expert report of Joseph McAlexander (the
`
`“McAlexander Report”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions and analysis on whether Reynolds’s
`
`VUSE Solo, VUSE Ciro, VUSE Alto, and VUSE Vibe products (collectively, the “Accused
`
`VUSE Products”) infringe asserted claims 1-4 and 7 of the ’545 Patent and claims 1-10 and 16-
`
`25 of the ’374 Patent (“the asserted claims”). It is my opinion that the Accused VUSE Products
`
`do not infringe any asserted claim of the ’545 and ’374 Patents. I summarize my opinions in
`
`greater detail in Section V and explain the full basis for my opinions in Sections VI-XII below.
`
`3.
`
`I have also been asked to provide my opinions and analysis regarding whether
`
`two third-party products, the JUUL and MarkTen Elite, practiced the asserted claims of the ’545
`
`Patent if the Accused VUSE Products infringe the patent. As described in Section XI below, it is
`
`my opinion that both the JUUL and MarkTen Elite products practice at least one claim of the
`
`’545 Patent if the Accused VUSE Products infringe the patent.
`
`4.
`
`Finally, I have also been asked to provide my opinions and analysis in response to
`
`certain portions of Mr. McAlexander’s analysis relevant to damages, including his analysis of the
`
`technical comparability of the ’545 and ’374 Patents to
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 952-7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 6 of 11 PageID# 26461
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`A.
`
`9.
`
`Legal Standard For Infringement
`
`I understand that the burden to prove infringement rests with Altria, and that
`
`Altria must prove infringement by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that to prevail
`
`in a claim of patent infringement, Altria has the burden of proving that the accused infringer
`
`made, used, sold, or offered to sell the patented invention in the United States, or imported the
`
`patented invention into the United States. Specifically, Altria must prove, on a claim-by-claim
`
`basis, that each Accused VUSE Product meets each and every claim limitation, properly
`
`construed, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. I understand that the infringement
`
`analysis is performed by comparing the asserted claim with the accused instrumentality on a
`
`limitation-by-limitation basis, not by comparing them as a whole. I also understand that there
`
`can be no infringement if even a single claim limitation is absent in the accused device.
`
`10.
`
`It is my understanding that infringement of a U.S. patent requires a two-step
`
`analysis: (i) construing the patent claims to understand what meaning they would have to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention; and (ii) determining whether the accused device
`
`contains elements that correspond to each and every limitation present in an asserted claim.
`
`11.
`
`I understand that the Court has ordered all claim terms to be given their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. My analysis applies
`
`those constructions.
`
`12. My understanding is that the second step of the infringement analysis requires a
`
`determination of whether the accused device contains elements that correspond to each and every
`
`limitation present in an asserted claim. If the accused device contains elements that meet each
`
`and every limitation of an asserted claim, there is “literal” infringement. To establish literal
`
`infringement, the patentee must prove that each and every limitation set forth in a claim is found
`
`in the accused process, device, or system exactly as recited.
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 952-7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 7 of 11 PageID# 26462
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`power unit and said that it is the “lithium ion power source.” However, as explained above in
`
`Section IX.B(i), the ’545 Patent explicitly discloses that the lithium ion power source is the
`
`battery itself.
`
`
`
`X.
`
`THE ACCUSED VUSE PRODUCTS DO NOT INFRINGE THE ASSERTED
`CLAIMS OF THE ’374 PATENT
`
`99.
`
`In this Section, I will rebut several key points from Mr. McAlexander’s arguments
`
`regarding the alleged infringement of the ’374 Patent. I do not attempt to rebut every point made
`
`in Mr. McAlexander’s Report. However, as explained below, Mr. McAlexander’s report
`
`includes several important mistakes. Further, a significant portion of Mr. McAlexander analysis
`
`is simply not relevant to this infringement analysis.
`
`A.
`
`The Accused VUSE Products Do Not Meet The “Capacitor” Limitation Of
`All Asserted Claims
`
`100. Every independent claim of the ’374 Patent recites “a capacitor . . . consisting
`
`essentially of a flexible conductive membrane and a rigid conductive plate spaced apart by an
`
`insulating ring spacer between the flexible conductive membrane and the rigid conductive plate,
`
`and an air dielectric between the flexible conductive membrane and the rigid conductive plate.”
`
`(See ’374 Patent at 12:65-13:5, 14:1-7, 14:51-58.) Mr. McAlexander addresses this limitation at
`
`paragraphs 364-369 of his report and concludes that the Accused VUSE Products meet the
`
`limitation. For the reasons explained below, however, I disagree.
`
`101.
`
`I understand that when a patent claim uses the phrase “consisting essentially of”
`
`followed by a list of items, the listed items must be present for the claim to be infringed. I
`
`understand that other, unlisted items also may be present so long as they do not materially affect
`
`the basic and novel properties of the invention, but the presence of an additional item that
`
`materially affects the basic and novel properties of the invention means the claim is not
`
`infringed.
`
`
`
`41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 952-7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 8 of 11 PageID# 26463
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`102. The asserted claims of the ’374 Patent require four listed components: (1) “a
`
`flexible conductive membrane,” (2) “a rigid conductive plate,” (3) “an insulating ring spacer,”
`
`and (4) “an air dielectric between the flexible conductive membrane and the rigid conductive
`
`plate.”
`
`103.
`
`It is my opinion that the Accused VUSE Products do not infringe the asserted
`
`claims of the ’374 Patent because the capacitor in each puff sensor used in those products
`
`contains an additional, unlisted component that materially affects the basic and novel properties
`
`of the invention claimed. Specifically,
`
`104. Each of the puff sensors used in the Accused VUSE Products
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (See e.g.,
`
` RJREDVA_000841859-
`
`1863 at RJREDVA_000841860.) As Mr. McAlexander admits,
`
`
`
` (E.g., McAlexander Report at
`
`¶ 368.)
`
`105.
`
`In my opinion,
`
`r materially affects the basic and novel
`
`properties of the invention claimed in the asserted claims of the ’374 Patent.
`
`106. First,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`42
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 952-7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 9 of 11 PageID# 26464
`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`2
`
`107. Second,
`
`108.
`
`109. As described in the preceding paragraphs,
`
`materially
`
`affects the basic prope1ties of the claimed capacitor-namely,
`
`110.
`
`also materially affects the novel prope1ties of the claimed
`
`capacitor. During prosecution, the claims originally recited a capacitor "having [ 1] a flexible
`
`43
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 952-7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 10 of 11 PageID# 26465
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`SOUND OPE I GS ME BR.A E
`
`co
`
`CO ECTIO
`
`G
`
`ETAL CA
`
`..
`
`ET
`
`BACK
`PLA E
`
`PCB
`
`OUTPUT CROU 0
`PAD
`PAO
`321 patent, Figure 2 (' Prior Art" )
`
`
`112. At the time the claims were amended to that format, the applicant canceled three
`
`claims that recited that “the capacitor includes only air as a dielectric material between the
`
`flexible conductive membrane and the rigid conductive plate.” (File History of ’374 Patent at
`
`DEF_PUB_EDVA000017890-97 (claims 26, 43, 56).3) The applicant also struck the phrase “the
`
`capacitor includes only air as a dielectric material between the flexible conductive membrane
`
`and the rigid conductive plate” from another dependent claim. (File History of ’374 Patent at
`
`DEF_PUB_EDVA000017897 (claim 58).) These amendments show that the applicant and the
`
`examiner understood the “consisting essentially of” clause already required air to be the sole
`
`dielectric material between the flexible conductive membrane and the rigid conductive plate.
`
`113. Because the applicant narrowed the claims to solely an air dielectric in order to
`
`avoid the prior art, it is my opinion that
`
`
`
`of the Accused VUSE Products materially affects the novel properties of the invention.
`
`
`3 I am aware that claim 26 nonetheless issued as claim 5 of the ’374 Patent. I have been unable to determine any
`explanation for that fact other than error. Claim 26 was cancelled in the amendment that the examiner accepted.
`The other claims and claim limitations requiring “only air as a dielectric material” were deleted from the claims as
`requested. Only claim 26 was not. (File History of ’374 Patent at DEF_PUB_EDVA000017890-97.)
`45
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 952-7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 11 of 11 PageID# 26466
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`VUSE Alto
`
`119.
`
`In paragraphs 427-449 of the McAlexander Report, Mr. McAlexander argues that
`
`the VUSE Alto is configured to detect a blowing action.
`
`120. Mr. McAlexander argues that the VUSE Alto is configured to detect a blowing
`
`action because the VUSE “Alto
`
`
`
`
`
` (McAlexander
`
`Report at ¶ 428.) While accurately describing the VUSE Ciro’s response to a puffing action, Mr.
`
`McAlexander admits that
`
`
`
` (Id.) Mr. McAlexander argues that
`
` (Id.) Mr. McAlexander’s analysis is misguided. Even if a user
`
`blows into the VUSE Alto after drawing, it has not been shown that
`
` Regardless, even
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`; the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VUSE Alto is only configured to detect a puff (or draw), not a blow.
`
`121. Mr. McAlexander cites to Mr. Jansen’s infringement report because Mr. Jansen
`
`tested the VUSE Alto’s puff sensor and found that the measured capacitance varied between a
`
`draw, a blow, and a rest state. Mr. Jansen’s analysis does not change my opinion. Even if there
`
`is a slight variation in the capacitance of the circuit between a resting state and a blowing action,
`
`the device is still not configured to “detect a blowing action” as required by claim 1 of the ’374
`
`Patent.
`
`
`
`48
`
`