• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
1,235 results

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

Docket IPR2021-00746, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 31, 2021)
Elizabeth Roesel, Grace Karaffa Obermann, James Mayberry, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
10492541
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
10492541
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

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)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 624

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)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 617

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)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 626

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)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 579

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)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>