Mark Perry of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, representing Altria, underscored that Reynolds raised no objections during the trial to the damages testimony. He also defended the 5.25% rate, stating it was supported by both licensing agreements and other trial evidence.
The dispute centers on three Altria patents for pod-style vapes, which the jury found R.J. Reynolds had infringed with its Vuse Alto product. While Altria never launched its own product, it accused Reynolds of copying its design to produce a top-selling device.
Reynolds also argued in its briefs that the patents were invalid due to obviousness, citing a Juul vape product, and that evidence failed to substantiate infringement. These arguments, however, did not feature prominently in Monday’s proceedings.
Complicating the case further, Reynolds recently secured a sublicense to the disputed patents through Juul, which itself licenses the patents from Altria. The company argued that this sublicense nullifies its liability for ongoing royalties. However, U.S. District Judge William Osteen rejected this argument last Friday, ruling that the sublicense postdates the infringement and damages findings.
