Judges Split on the Damages Award
While the majority panel found ample evidence supporting both Altria’s claims and the hefty damages sum, Circuit Judge William Bryson dissented. In his view, the jury had been overly generous, and the royalty rate should have been halved from 5.25%, calling for a new damages trial unless Altria voluntarily cut the award in half—a proposal that never materialized.
R.J. Reynolds’ petition for reconsideration argued that the appellate panel ignored critical facts, particularly regarding the role of non-patented features in the Vuse Alto’s success. The company insisted that under Supreme Court precedent, Altria should have provided clearer evidence separating patented contributions from unpatented ones when calculating damages.
Legal Battle Far From Over?
With the Federal Circuit declining to intervene, R.J. Reynolds’ legal options are narrowing, but a Supreme Court appeal could still be on the table. Industry experts say the case sets a powerful precedent in the rapidly evolving e-cigarette market, where patent disputes are becoming increasingly high-stakes.
Legal teams for both sides have remained tight-lipped, declining to provide immediate comments on the ruling.
