Search court records on patent:(10485269) - party Hill Ward Henderson, page 3

No. 307 ORDER ON MOTION TO EXTEND RULE 26 DEADLINES granting 306 Joint Motion to extend the parties' ...

Document ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC et al v. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, 1:20-cv-00472, No. 307 (M.D.N.C. Jul. 28, 2022)

and MODORAL BRANDS, INC.,

Upon consideration of Defendants R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and Modoral Brands, Inc.’s consent motion to extend the parties’ deadline to serve objections to exhibit lists, objections to deposition designations, and deposition counter-designations from August 4, 2022 to August 11, 2022, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

This the 28th day of July, 2022.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- William Osteen
Analyze Party
- Altria Client Services
Analyze Firm

No. 302 ORDER signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 7/21/2022; that the Joint Motion to Modify Pretrial ...

Document ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC et al v. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, 1:20-cv-00472, No. 302 (M.D.N.C. Jul. 21, 2022)

This matter is before the Court on a Joint Motion to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order [Doc. #301].

The parties’ co-extensive efforts to coordinate trial preparation in addition to that ordered by the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order [Doc. #295] is appreciated.

And the parties are encouraged to continue to do so as outlined in their proposed schedule.

Objections to exhibits, deposition designations, and deposition counter-designations will be heard the week before trial during the pretrial hearing on motions in limine scheduled to begin on August 22, 2022, thus avoiding to the extent possible the inconvenience and hardship the resolution of such disputes would impose on the jury that will be convened for trial.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order [Doc. #301] is DENIED.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- William Osteen
Analyze Party
- Altria Client Services
Analyze Firm

No. 296 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 7/14/2022; that Defendants' ...

Document ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC et al v. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, 1:20-cv-00472, No. 296 (M.D.N.C. Jul. 14, 2022)

Motion to StrikeDenied

First, it is determined that Defendants were sufficiently specific to meet their initial burden when they responded to Plaintiffs’ damages interrogatory by identifying “Plaintiffs’ licensee JUUL” as practicing Asserted Claims of the Hawes Patents “in the JUUL Device and accompanying Pods”, (Defs.’ Objs.

Perhaps it can be argued that because Defendants identified during fact discovery the licensed JUUL device and accompanying pods as practicing the Asserted Claims that Plaintiffs’ expert should have known to opine on marking in his opening report.

P. 56(a).” Groves v. Commc’n Workers of Am., 815 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2016).15 The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing “the basis for its motion[] and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ.

The “mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).

“Clear and convincing evidence should place[] in the fact finder an abiding conviction that the truth of [the] factual contentions are highly probable.” Impax Labs., Inc. v. Lannett Holdings Inc., 893 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citations omitted and alterations in original).

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- William Osteen
Analyze Party
- Altria Client Services
Analyze Firm

No. 295 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 7/7/2022; Pretrial disclosures ...

Document ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC et al v. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, 1:20-cv-00472, No. 295 (M.D.N.C. Jul. 7, 2022)

Scheduling Order

This matter has been set for trial on August 29, 2022.

In preparation for trial, the Court ORDERS that the parties submit pretrial filings on the following schedule: 1.

Pretrial disclosures must be made no later than July 21, 2022.

Plaintiffs pretrial motions based on new discovery resulting from the Court’s July 6, 2022 Memorandum Opinion and Order must be submitted by August 4, 2022.

Trial briefs and jury instructions must be submitted no later than August 4, 2022.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- William Osteen
Analyze Party
- Altria Client Services
Analyze Firm

No. 293 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 7/6/2022; that Plaintiffs' ...

Document ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC et al v. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, 1:20-cv-00472, No. 293 (M.D.N.C. Jul. 6, 2022)

Motion to StrikePartial

The parties submitted a Joint Status Report on May 23, 2022, in which Plaintiffs maintain that the progress of this case since the filing of the motion has had no effect while Defendants contend that their “invalidity contentions and theories have been narrowed and fully aired in the parties’ respective competing expert reports”.

Defendants “also amended [their] Final Invalidity Contentions for the Bried patent family to address newly discovered tins” that they purchased on pipestud.com “(a website whose inventory is constantly changing)” “shortly before [they] deposed a third party, Steven Fallon of pipestud.com.” (Defs.’ Opp’n at 13.)

Next, Plaintiffs are afforded the opportunity to conduct accelerated discovery of their choosing (interrogatories, requests for production of documents, depositions) related to Defendants’ combination and motivation disclosures.

Finally, Defendants are ordered to pay Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs associated with (a) Plaintiffs’ counsel’s work on the portion of this motion that pertains to violation of Rule 103.3(b) and (b) Plaintiff’s accelerated discovery, if any, related to Defendants’ combination and motivation disclosures.

In their brief, Defendants argue: For whatever strategic reason – perhaps because it was already well aware of the 2013-14 history concerning the Bried patents – Altria chose to not serve an interrogatory (or other discovery) related to that defense.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- William Osteen
Analyze Party
- Altria Client Services
Analyze Firm

No. 294 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 7/6/2022; that Defendants' ...

Document ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC et al v. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, 1:20-cv-00472, No. 294 (M.D.N.C. Jul. 6, 2022)

Motion to Enforce SettlementGranted

Two days later, the Court entered a Text Order deferring ruling on the motion to stay until the PTAB issued its institution decisions on the remaining patents.

In view of the amount of fact and expert discovery already conducted to date, Reynolds fully expects Altria to dismiss such counts with prejudice.

“Although resolution of a motion to enforce a settlement agreement draws on standard contract principles, it may be accomplished within the context of the underlying litigation without the need for a new complaint.” Hensley v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 277 F.3d 535, 540 (4th Cir. 2002).

Consideration has long been understood as “some right, interest, or benefit accruing to the other party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.” ACME Mfg.

Although the parties were afforded a hearing on this motion (during which the only evidence presented was an additional email exchange among counsel), there is no genuine factual dispute as to the existence and terms of the agreement as explained in this opinion.

Cite Document

Analyze