Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 987 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 27654
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`Plaintiffs and
`Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. AND
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USA INC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTS S.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants and
`Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`PMI/ALTRIA’S OPPOSITION TO RJR’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 987 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID# 27655
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`RJR’S MIL #7: RJR MAY NOT EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO ITS EXPRESS
`ADMISSIONS THAT THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS FROM JUUL AND NU MARK
`PRACTICE THE ’545 PATENT .....................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`PMI/Altria’s Experts Do Not Cite RJR’s Admissions To Prove
`Infringement .............................................................................................................2
`
`PMI/Altria’s Experts Accurately Represent RJR’s Own Admissions To
`Support Their Opinions On Validity And Damages ................................................2
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 987 Filed 02/11/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID# 27656
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 11-cv-1846, 2018 WL 2010621 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018) ................................................. 4
`
`Ga.-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.,
`318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) ............................................................................................ 3
`
`In re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 15-cv-7488, 2019 WL 6242128 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2019) ................................................... 2
`
`Johnson & Johnston Assocs. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co.,
`285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`Pro Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc.,
`75 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`Rex Real Est. I, L.P. v. Rex Real Est. Exch., Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-696, 2020 WL 710198 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2020) .................................................... 4
`
`SCA Hygiene Prod. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prod., LLC,
`250 F. Supp. 3d 244 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 7, 2017) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Zenith Lab’ys, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,
`19 F.3d 1418 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ............................................................................................................................... 1
`
`FED R. EVID. 403 ............................................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 987 Filed 02/11/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID# 27657
`
`
`
`RJR’S MIL #7: RJR MAY NOT EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO ITS EXPRESS
`ADMISSIONS THAT THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS FROM JUUL AND NU MARK
`PRACTICE THE ’545 PATENT
`
`During discovery, RJR expressly admitted—in no fewer than four separate requests for
`
`admission, an interrogatory response, a letter, and an expert report—that third parties JUUL and
`
`Nu Mark “practice[] the ’545 patent as [PMI/Altria] construe and assert the claims.”1 Dkt. 846-5
`
`at 7-8; Dkt. 846-1 at 4-7; Dkt. 846-3 ¶¶ 159-160; Ex. A (Nov. 20, 2020 Ltr. From J. Michalik).
`
`RJR made these admissions to support its defense that pre-suit damages for the ’545 Patent should
`
`be limited under the marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 287. Dkt. 846-5 at 7-8. Relying on these
`
`admissions, PM USA in turn reasonably stipulated to drop pre-suit damages on the ’545 Patent to
`
`narrow the issues for trial. Dkt. 549.
`
`RJR now wants to effectively withdraw its (repeated) admissions and preclude
`
`PMI/Altria’s experts from relying those admissions at trial. First, RJR argues PMI/Altria’s experts
`
`supposedly rely on these admissions to opine on infringement of the ’545 patent. That is a
`
`strawman. PMI/Altria and its experts have never used RJR’s admissions that way. Second, RJR
`
`argues that PMI/Altria’s experts misrepresent these admissions when citing them to opine on non-
`
`obviousness and damages, rendering their opinions irrelevant. The opposite is true. PMI/Altria’s
`
`experts accurately quote and cite RJR’s own admissions as relevant evidence supporting their
`
`respective opinions.
`
`RJR’s request directly contradicts its express admissions. It would be fundamentally unfair
`
`to permit RJR to benefit from these statements to prevail on its marking defense then preclude
`
`
`1 An exemplary RJR admission states: “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.” Dkt. 846-1 at 4.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 987 Filed 02/11/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID# 27658
`
`
`
`PMI/Altria from using the same admissions to at trial when they are probative of validity and
`
`damages. RJR’s motion should be denied.
`
`A.
`
`PMI/Altria’s Experts Do Not Cite RJR’s Admissions To Prove Infringement
`
`RJR contends the Court should preclude PMI/Altria from offering evidence “that any
`
`VUSE products allegedly infringe any claim of the ’545 patent on the basis that JUUL and/or Nu
`
`Mark allegedly practice that patent.”2 Mot. at Title. But PMI/Altria has never argued that the
`
`accused products “infringe” the ’545 Patent based on JUUL or Nu Mark’s use of that patent. RJR
`
`identifies nothing suggesting otherwise. That should be dispositive and renders RJR’s baseless
`
`MIL moot. See In re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 15-cv-7488, 2019 WL
`
`6242128, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2019) (denying MIL as moot based on opposing party
`
`representation).
`
`B.
`
`PMI/Altria’s Experts Accurately Represent RJR’s Own Admissions To
`Support Their Opinions On Validity And Damages
`
`
`
`RJR contends that PMI/Altria’s experts “misrepresent[ed]” RJR’s position by omitting
`
`“key qualifications” from its discovery responses. Mot. at 5, 8. That is false. PMI/Altria’s experts
`
`quoted directly from RJR’s discovery responses and expressly included the “key qualifier”
`
`language—“as those claims are construed and asserted by Defendants”—that RJR wrongly
`
`contends is missing. See Ex. B (Meyer Op.) ¶¶ 422, 458; Ex. C (McAlexander Op.) ¶ 680.3
`
`PMI/Altria’s experts did not mischaracterize RJR’s position; they simply quoted it. In any event,
`
`RJR’s emphasis on the words “PMI/Altria construe and assert the claims” is a red herring.
`
`PMI/Altria did not seek to construe any term of the ’545 Patent. It has always relied on plain and
`
`
`2 All emphasis added, and internal citations and quotations omitted, unless otherwise noted.
`3 To the extent there is any ambiguity in his opinions (and there is not), Mr. McAlexander clarified
`this at his deposition by referencing RJR’s “qualification.” Ex. D (McAlexander Dep.) at 277:20-
`278:22.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 987 Filed 02/11/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID# 27659
`
`
`
`ordinary meaning. Dkt. 223 at 17. RJR, however, attempted to rewrite those claims. The Court
`
`rejected it. Cf. Dkt. 360 with Dkt. 223 at 17.
`
`RJR’s attempts to dismiss its own admissions as “irrelevant” because PMI/Altria allegedly
`
`relies on them “only” to “imply[] that Reynolds has admitted its own devices infringe.” That is
`
`incorrect. Mot. at 5. That JUUL—the undisputed leader in the e-vapor market—practices of the
`
`’545 Patent is relevant to objective indicia of non-obviousness. See Pro Mold & Tool Co. v. Great
`
`Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (finding evidence of industry participants
`
`practicing patent shows “industry acceptance”); SCA Hygiene Prod. Aktiebolag v. First Quality
`
`Baby Prod., LLC, 250 F. Supp. 3d 244, 263–66 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 7, 2017) (admitting testimony
`
`regarding commercial success of third party practicing the patent). It is separately relevant to
`
`damages, as Georgia Pacific Factor No. 10 requires the experts consider “the benefits to those who
`
`have used the invention.” Ga.-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116,
`
`1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). PMI/Altria’s experts rely on RJR’s admissions only to prove damages and
`
`validity—not RJR’s infringement.4 Ex. B (Meyer Op.) ¶¶ 393, 422-423, 458; Ex. E (McAlexander
`
`Rbt.) at ¶¶ 500-06.
`
`RJR’s conclusory assertions about the purported risks of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, misleading the jury, and wasting time are overstated. They do not outweigh, much less
`
`“substantially outweigh,” the highly probative value of the subject evidence. FED R. EVID. 403.
`
`And, while RJR’s (incorrect) belief that PMI/Altria’s experts’ opinions rest on “omissions and/or
`
`exaggerations,” that may be “fodder for a strenuous cross-examination,” but is not a basis for
`
`
`4 RJR cited cases are inapposite for this reason. They merely explain that infringement is
`determined by comparing “the claim as properly construed … to the accused device.” Absolute
`Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 659 F.3d 1121, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Zenith Lab’ys, Inc. v.
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 19 F.3d 1418, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Johnson & Johnston Assocs. Inc.
`v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 987 Filed 02/11/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID# 27660
`
`
`
`exclusion. Rex Real Est. I, L.P. v. Rex Real Est. Exch., Inc., No. 19-cv-696, 2020 WL 710198, at
`
`*5 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2020); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-cv-1846, 2018 WL
`
`2010621, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018) (finding prejudice can be cured by cross examination).
`
`Dated: February 11, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Maximilian A. Grant
`Maximilian A. Grant (VSB No. 91792)
`max.grant@lw.com
`Lawrence J. Gotts (VSB No. 25337)
`lawrence.gotts@lw.com
`Matthew J. Moore (pro hac vice)
`matthew.moore@lw.com
`Jamie Underwood (pro hac vice)
`jamie.underwood@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 637-2200
`Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
`
`Clement J. Naples (pro hac vice)
`clement.naples@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`1271 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10020
`Tel: (212) 906-1200; Fax: (212) 751-4864
`
`Gregory J. Sobolski (pro hac vice)
`greg.sobolski@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 391-0600
`Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
`
`Brenda L. Danek (pro hac vice)
`brenda.danek@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
`Chicago, IL 60611
`Tel: (312) 876-7700
`Fax: (312) 993-9767
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 987 Filed 02/11/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID# 27661
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Altria Client Services
`LLC, Philip Morris USA Inc., and Philip
`Morris Products S.A.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 987 Filed 02/11/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID# 27662
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 11th day of February, 2022, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing was served using the Court’s CM/ECF filing system, with electronic notification of
`
`such filing to all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`/s/ Maximilian A. Grant
`Maximilian A. Grant (VSB No. 91792)
` LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 637-2200
`Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
`Email: max.grant@lw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Altria Client
`Services LLC, Philip Morris USA Inc.,
`and Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`