• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
1,229 results

R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Altria Client Services LLC

Docket IPR2021-00745, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 31, 2021)
Elizabeth Roesel, Grace Karaffa Obermann, James Mayberry, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
10485269
Patent Owner Altria Client Services LLC
Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC et al v. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY

Docket 1:20-cv-00472, North Carolina Middle District Court (May 28, 2020)
JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR, presiding, MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER
Patent
DivisionNCMD
Flags18BD, APPEAL, MEDIATION, TRIAL
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
10143242; 10264824; 10299517; 10485269; 10492541; 10588357; 7798319; 8458996; 8556070
10485269
779831984589968556070
Plaintiff ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC
Plaintiff U.S. SMOKELESS TOBACCO COMPANY LLC
Defendant R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 656 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR. on 2/25/2025; that Defendant's ...

Document ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC et al v. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, 1:20-cv-00472, No. 656 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 25, 2025)
The Fourth Circuit in In re U.S. explained that cases subsequent to Rushford have not applied a “heavily outweigh” standard, and accordingly, “to overcome the common law presumption of access, the government’s interests must merely outweigh the public’s interest.” In re U.S., 707 F.3d at 293 n.12.
For example, “[i]n the appropriate case, the interest in preserving the confidentiality of sensitive business information can override the public’s First Amendment right of access.” Natera, Inc. v. NeoGenomics Lab’ys, Inc., No. 1:23-CV-629, 2024 WL 1464744, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 2024) (cleaned up) (citation omitted).
Further, Altria’s Vice President, Enterprise, Strategy, Planning and New Ventures, Brian F. Blaylock, attested in a declaration that the amendment, like the original agreement, “contains sensitive commercial and financial information.” (See Doc. 619-1 at 1, 2.)
The public does, of course, have an interest in these documents, to some extent, because the Rule 60(b) motion and subsequent arguments by the parties revolve in large part around the content of these two agreements.
Finally, as discussed above, Altria proposes redactions, from the Rule 60(b) briefing and hearing transcript, of information related to its original 2018 licensing agreement with JUUL, (Doc. 110-2).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 629 ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR. on 9/17/2024; that Plaintiff's Consent Motion ...

Document ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC et al v. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, 1:20-cv-00472, No. 629 (M.D.N.C. Sep. 17, 2024)
Motion to Continue HearingGranted
This matter comes before the court upon Plaintiff Altria Client Services LLC’s (“Altria”) Consent Motion for Continuance of Oral Argument Hearing.
Because of preexisting scheduling conflicts, Plaintiff Altria with the consent of Defendant R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (“Reynolds”) moves the court to continue the October 4, 2024 oral argument hearing on Defendant Reynold’s Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Rule 60.
Plaintiff’s motion recites that counsel for Altria consulted with counsel for Reynolds; Reynolds confirmed that it does not oppose continuing the hearing as long as it can be rescheduled in October.
Reynolds opposes any continuance beyond October 31, 2024.
Having considered the motion, with the consent of Defendant and for good cause shown, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Consent Motion for Continuance of Oral Argument Hearing, (Doc. 628), is GRANTED and the Oral Argument Hearing in this matter is hereby rescheduled to October 29, 2024 at 2:00 p.m., in Greensboro Courtroom One.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 624 ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR. on 8/20/2024; that the Joint Motion for Oral Argument ...

Document ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC et al v. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, 1:20-cv-00472, No. 624 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 20, 2024)
This matter comes before the court upon a Joint Motion for Oral Argument on Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Judgment and Ongoing Royalty Order and Request for Indicative Ruling.
Plaintiff Altria Client Services LLC (“Altria”) and Defendant R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (“Reynolds”) move the court to calendar a hearing for oral argument on Defendant Reynold’s Motion for Relief from Judgment and Ongoing Royalty Order and Request for Indicative Ruling, (Doc. 611).
The parties believe oral argument will assist the court in considering the motion.
Having reviewed the pleadings, with the agreement of the parties, and for good cause shown this court finds the motion should be granted.
(Doc. 623), is GRANTED and the parties shall appear for Oral Argument Hearing before this court on Friday, October 4, 2024 at 11:00 a.m., in Greensboro Courtroom 1.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 617 ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR. on 7/16/2024; that Plaintiff's Consent Motion ...

Document ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC et al v. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, 1:20-cv-00472, No. 617 (M.D.N.C. Jul. 16, 2024)
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Altria Client Services, LLC’s Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Relief from Judgment and Motion to Seal.
Plaintiff moves the court for a 21-day extension of time until August 14, 2024, to respond to Defendant R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company’s (“Reynolds”) Motion for Relief from Judgment, (Doc. 611), and a commensurate extension of the deadline to submits its brief in support of Reynolds’ Motion to Seal, (Doc. 613).
Having considered the motion, with the consent of Defendant, and for good cause shown the motion will be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Relief from Judgment and Motion to Seal, (Doc. 616), is GRANTED, and Plaintiff shall have until August 14, 2024, in which to respond to Reynolds’ Motion for Relief from Judgment, (Doc. 611), and to submits its brief in support of Reynolds’ Motion to Seal, (Doc. 613).
United States District Judge
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 626 MOTION to Seal Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Relief from Judgment and Ongoing Royalty ...

Document ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC et al v. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, 1:20-cv-00472, No. 626 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 28, 2024)
Motion to Seal
Pursuant to Local Rules 5.4(c) and 7.3, Defendant R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (“Reynolds”) respectfully requests that the Court seal confidential portions of Reynolds’s Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Relief from Judgment and Ongoing Royalty Order and Request for Indicative Ruling (“Reply Brief”).
The proposed redactions in Reynolds’s Reply Brief correspond to the same confidential information in Exhibits 5 and 7 to Reynolds’s Opening Brief (Dkt. Nos. 615- 5 and 615-7) that is subject to Reynolds’s previously filed Motion to Seal (Dkt. No. 613).
Both Parties have now submitted briefs in support of maintaining such information under seal, as well as testimonial evidence in support.
For those same reasons articulated in the previous Motion to Seal and corresponding Briefs in Support, the redacted portions of Reynolds’s Reply Brief directed to the same confidential information should be maintained under seal.
WHEREFORE, Reynolds respectfully requests that the Court maintain Reynolds’s unredacted Reply Brief under seal.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 579 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 1/27/2023; that Plaintiff ...

Document ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC et al v. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, 1:20-cv-00472, No. 579 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2023)
The parties then stipulated that RJR would pay Altria the 5.25% running royalty on positive net sales of the Alto pods and power units from July 1, 2022 through the date of the judgment, (Jt.
7 District courts in cases like this have faced a quandary when assessing the parties’ change in bargaining positions because the original hypothetical required the jury to assume the patent was valid and infringed.
“[T]he jury’s finding as to the proper royalty rate in a setting in which the patent is assumed to be infringed and valid is highly pertinent to the Court’s equitable task of determining a post-verdict award in lieu of an injunction.” UroPrep, 2017 WL 3034655, at *7.
Next, applying factors 8 and 11, Altria argues that the Alto’s better market position and increased profitability and popularity compared to May 2019 are changed economic conditions that also favor a higher royalty rate.
“And, while a factfinder is, at times, permitted to look to later facts in order ‘to bring out and expose to light the elements of value that were there from the beginning,’ ... the jury was not instructed to do so here.” (Id. (quoting Fromson v. W. Litho Plate & Supply Co., 853 F.2d 1568, 1575 (Fed. Cir.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>