`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 992 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 27755
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PMI/ALTRIA’S OPPOSITION TO RJR’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 992 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 11 PageID# 27756
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`RJR’S MIL #9: THE JURY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONSIDER
`REGARDING THE ACCUSED ALTO E-
`CIGARETTE .......................................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
` Are Relevant To
`Infringement .............................................................................................................1
`
` Are Relevant To Damages ..............2
`
`RJR Has Not Shown That Exclusion Is Warranted Under Rule 403 .......................5
`
`Conclusion ...............................................................................................................6
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 992 Filed 02/11/22 Page 3 of 11 PageID# 27757
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Am. Academy of Pediatrics v. FDA,
`No. 8:18-cv-883, Dkt 179 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2020) ....................................................................... 3
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`Fabric Selection, Inc. v. NNW Imp., Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-8558, 2018 WL 1779334 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2018) .................................................. 6
`
`Intelligent Verification Sys., LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 12-cv-525, 2015 WL 1518099 (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2015) .................................................... 2
`
`Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp.,
`No. 17-cv-04405, 2021 WL 2224267 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2021) ............................................. 5, 6
`
`SPEX Techs. v. Apricorn, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-7349, 2020 WL 1289546 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2020) .................................................. 4
`
`RULES
`
`FED. R. EVID. 403 ............................................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 992 Filed 02/11/22 Page 4 of 11 PageID# 27758
`
`
`RJR’S MIL #9: THE JURY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONSIDER
` REGARDING THE ACCUSED ALTO E-CIGARETTE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Now, RJR wants to exclude that evidence from trial because certain technical information is
`
`supposedly
`
` Mot. at 1. RJR is wrong and its request overbroad.
`
`The Court should deny RJR’s motion for three reasons. First, RJR’s request is overbroad
`
`because it seeks to exclude technical documents that include admittedly
`
`
`
`
`
`seek to exclude it after the other side’s expert (reasonably) relies on that discovery. Second, the
`
` A party cannot produce discovery and then
`
`
`
`
`
` Third, RJR’s almost throwaway conclusory
`
`assertions of confusion and prejudice do not substantially outweigh (or outweigh at all) the highly
`
`probative value of its own
`
` FED. R. EVID. 403.
`
`A.
`
` Are Relevant To Infringement
`
`RJR contends that the Court should exclude evidence from
`
`
`
` and, according to RJR, thus irrelevant to
`
`infringement. Mot. at 4-5. RJR’s requested relief is overbroad because these
`
`
`
`discovery. That evidence is relevant to infringement and was (unsurprisingly)
`
`
`
` that RJR produced in
`
`.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 992 Filed 02/11/22 Page 5 of 11 PageID# 27759
`
` Mot. at 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See Dkts. 541, 541-1 (RJR stipulating that PX-28 and PX-122, among other documents, are
`
`authentic business records).
`
`
`
` Mot.
`
`at 2; see also Dkt. 856-2 at 309:7-9, 335:22-338:18. And, contrary to RJR’s unsupported assertion,
`
`PMI/Altria’s expert does rely
`
` to show infringement. See
`
`Dkt. 856-4 (Abraham 3/12/2021 Supp. Rpt.) ¶¶ 11-12, 17-18, 22, 25, 31, 38, 40-42 (citing PX-28
`
`(RJREDVA_001450878) and PX-122 (RJRITC_001360053)). The Court should deny RJR’s
`
`overbroad request for wholesale exclusion of exhibits that include evidence undisputedly relevant
`
`to infringement. Intelligent Verification Sys., LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 12-cv-525, 2015 WL
`
`1518099, at *10 (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2015) (“Orders in limine which exclude broad categories of
`
`evidence should rarely be employed.”).
`
`B.
`
` Are Relevant To Damages
`
`Separately, RJR’s motion should be denied because RJR’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. A (Ehrlich Op.) ¶¶ 18-40;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 992 Filed 02/11/22 Page 6 of 11 PageID# 27760
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 992 Filed 02/11/22 Page 6 of 11 PagelD# 27760
`
`Ex. B (Sullivan Rbt.) 9 24, 52, 285-87, 293, 345, 378; Ex. C (Clissold Rbt.) ¥ 8, 12, 17-20, 32,
`
`35, 37, 48-49, 54.
`
`9 8, 12, 17-202
`
`(Ehrlich Op.) § 29.
`
`Ex. B (Sullivan Rbt.) §§ 285-87, 293; Ex. C (Clissold Rbt.)
`
`Ex. D (Ehrlich Dep.) at 186:5-189:16; Ex. A
`
`ES 1j0:) shoud
`allowed to weigh the evidencdi and decide whether
`
`those theories are credible.
`
`Second, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued an orderthat required
`
`RJR (and other e-cigarette manufacturers) to submit complete and accurate PMTAs by September
`
`9, 2020. Am. AcademyofPediatrics v. FDA, No. 8:18-cv-883, Dkt. 179, Indicative Order (D. Md.
`
`Apr. 3, 2020); Ex. A (Ehrlich Op.) § 28.
`
`Mot. at 1-2.
`
`! The relevant history of e-cigarette regulation in the United States is described in the opening
`report of PMI/Altria’s FDA expert, Stacy Ehrlich. Ex. A (Ehrlich Op.) §§ 18-40.
`
`2 See Dkts. 910 (Sullivan Daubert), 917 (Clissold Daubert).
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 992 Filed 02/11/22 Page 7 of 11 PageID# 27761
`
`
`
` Ex. E (Clissold Dep.) at 87:1-88:10.
`
` Id.; Ex. D (Ehrlich Dep.) at 186:5-189:16.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` SPEX Techs. v. Apricorn, Inc., No. 16-cv-7349, 2020 WL 1289546, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan.
`
`21, 2020); see Dkt. 915 at 19-24; Dkt. 922 at 8-12.
`
`jury in this case is tasked with deciding the questions of validity and infringement of the ’911
`
` “[t]he
`
`Patent, not with deciphering the VUSE Alto’s regulatory status.” Mot. at 5. RJR is wrong.
`
`
`
`
`
`(Sullivan Rbt.) ¶¶ 291-95.
`
`(Clissold Rbt.) ¶¶ 8, 54-55.
`
` Ex. B
`
`
`
` Ex. C
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. F (Meyer
`
`Op.) ¶¶ 440-51; Ex. A (Ehrlich Op.) ¶¶ 98-103; see also DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor
`
`Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (affirming finding that redesigned product was
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 992 Filed 02/11/22 Page 8 of 11 PageID# 27762
`
`not “available” where it was not on the market and “had never been submitted to [FDA] for the
`
`necessary marketing approval”).
`
`C.
`
`RJR Has Not Shown That Exclusion Is Warranted Under Rule 403
`
`Facing the challenge of excluding authentic documents that it produced in discovery that
`
`are undeniably probative of infringement and damages, RJR makes conclusory claims of unfair
`
`prejudice under Rule 403. For example, RJR argues that the jury may be misled into comparing
`
` with the ’911 Patent claims to determine infringement. Mot. at 6.
`
`Aside from RJR’s unsupported speculation, there is no such risk because
`
`
`
`
`
` Dkt. 856-3 (Abraham Dep.) at 72:21-73:2 (“I am not
`
`intending to offer opinions at trial based on
`
`.”). To the extent there is any
`
`potential confusion that genuinely gives RJR pause, its lawyers can clarify
`
`
`
` (i) with their experts, (ii) on cross-examination, and (iii) in
`
`closing. RJR identifies no concrete risks of unfair prejudice, and there are none. The real danger
`
`of prejudice is on the other side; it would be unfairly prejudicial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RJR’s cited cases are inapposite. Mot. at 6. The court in Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis
`
`Pharmaceutical Corp. excluded evidence of compounds of the patentee’s own products that were
`
`“not covered by the asserted patents,” which the patentee sought to use “to explain its development
`
`story for the asserted patents” and “rebut [defendant’s] arguments for lack of enablement,
`
`obviousness, and damages.” No. 17-cv-04405, 2021 WL 2224267, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2021).
`
`The court excluded this evidence for certain purposes because “[i]ndividual elements of a patent
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 992 Filed 02/11/22 Page 9 of 11 PageID# 27763
`
`claim—no matter how important to the invention—are not entitled to protection,” and “[r]elated
`
`inventions similarly have no bearing.” Id. (citations omitted). That is distinct from the situation
`
`here, where RJR seeks to exclude evidence that is relevant to both infringement (the accurate
`
`technical information)
`
`
`
` RJR has put at issue.
`
`RJR relies on Fabric Selection, Inc. v. NNW Imp., Inc., but that is a copyright case, not a
`
`patent infringement case. No. 16-cv-8558, 2018 WL 1779334, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2018).
`
`And, in any event, the plaintiff in Fabric Selection only sought to use the allegedly incorrect
`
`designs for impeachment and the evidence was otherwise irrelevant to any issue at trial. Id. Here,
`
`PX-28 and PX-122 were both produced by RJR and are undisputedly authentic and probative of
`
`both liability (infringement) and the
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Conclusion
`
`PMI/Altria respectfully request that the Court deny RJR’s Motion in Limine No. 9.
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 992 Filed 02/11/22 Page 10 of 11 PageID# 27764
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`885 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022-4834
`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
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Altria Client Services
`LLC, Philip Morris USA Inc., and Philip
`Morris Products S.A.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 992 Filed 02/11/22 Page 11 of 11 PageID# 27765
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
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
