Altria Client Servs. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.

• Docket Number: 1:20CV472
• Decision Date: 12 January 2023
• Citation: Altria Client Servs. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., 650 F.Supp.3d 375 (M.D. N.C. 2023)
• Parties: ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, Plaintiff, v. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina

650 F.Supp.3d 375

ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, Plaintiff, v. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY, Defendant.

1:20CV472

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina

Signed January 12, 2023

Adrian C. Percer, Robert S. Magee, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, Amanda Branch, Anish R. Desai, Matthew D. Sieger, Priyata Patel, Robert T. Vlasis, Stephanie N. Adamakos, William S. Ansley, Eric Cole Westerhold, Isha Agarwal, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Washington, DC, Andrew R. Shores, Robert Van Arnam, Williams Mullen, Raleigh, NC, Diane P. Sullivan, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Princeton, NJ, Elizabeth S. Weiswasser, John J. Nolan, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

John F. Morrow, Jr., Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, NC, Ryan H. Niland, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Winston-Salem, NC, Alexis A. Smith, Nicole M. Smith, Jones Day, Los Angeles, CA, Amelia A. Degory, Jones Day, Washington, DC, John A. Marlott, John M. Michalik, Marc S. Blackman, Michelle B. Smit, William Edward Devitt, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, Amelia E. Murray, Chicago, IL, David Maiorana, Kenneth S. Luchesi, Michael S. Quinlan, Robert M. Breetz, Ryan B. McCrum, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, Emily C. Baker, Frank T. Bayuk, Gillian Schroff Raleigh, Jack Williams, Jr., Jason T. Burnette, Stephanie E. Parker, Jones Day, Atlanta, GA, Emily J. Tait, Jones Day, Detroit, MI, John D. Wooten, IV, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Greensboro, NC, Troy A. Fuhrman, Hill Ward Henderson, Tampa, FL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior United States District Judge

In this patent action, Plaintiff Altria Client Services LLC ("Altria") claimed that Defendant R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company's Vuse Alto e-vapor product infringed on various Altria patents. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company ("RJR") disputed that allegation and also argued that, in any event, Altria's patents were invalid.¹ A jury found in favor of Altria on each question before it. The jury determined that RJR infringed on each Asserted Claim in the Asserted Patents², that RJR did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the Asserted Claims was invalid, and that JUUL Labs, Inc. did not make or sell a device after May 2019 that practiced the Asserted Patents (so the JUUL device did not need to be marked with those patents). (Verdict [Doc. #458].) The jury awarded Altria $95,233,292.00 in damages for RJR's past infringement through June 30, 2022. (Id.) Final Judgment was then entered in Altria's favor. [Doc. #473.] This matter is before the Court on RJR's Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law [Doc. #500] and its Rule 59 Motion for New Trial or Remittitur [Doc. #495], as well as numerous related motions to seal [Docs. #421 (as modified by Doc. #467), 423 (as modified by Doc. #467), 438, 442, 447, 452, 456, 482, 484, 497, 502, 530, 538, 542, 545, 552, 555, 466 (motion to supplement), 561 (consent motion)]. For the reasons explained below, the motions to seal are granted in part and denied in part, the motion to supplement and consent motion are granted, the Rule 50(b) motion is denied, and the Rule 59 motion is denied.

I.

Both parties moved to seal portions of (1) their briefs and supporting exhibits accompanying Rule 50(a), 50(b), and 59(a) motions, (2) trial exhibits, and (3) pre-trial and trial testimony. There is both a common law right and a First Amendment right of access to judicial records and documents, defined as documents that "play a role in the adjudicative process, or adjudicate substantive rights." In re U.S. for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(d), 707 F.3d 283, 290 (4th Cir. 2013); accord In re Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 67 F.3d 296 (table), 1995 WL 541623, at *3-4 (4th Cir. Sept 13, 1995) (finding that documents submitted to, but not considered by, the court did "not play any role in the adjudicative process" and "are [therefore] not subject to" the common law or First Amendment right of access).

The First Amendment right of access extends to judicial records and documents filed with summary judgment motions and used at trial, see Rushford v. The New Yorker Magazine, 846 F.2d 249, 252-53 (4th Cir. 1988), and thus applies here. To overcome such access, there must be "a compelling governmental interest" and "the denial [must be] narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Id. The moving party "must present specific reasons in support of its position." Va. Dep't of State Police v. Washington Post, 386 F.3d 567, 575 (4th Cir. 2004). Documents that "could provide a 'source[] of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing'" may, with the proper showing, be restricted from public access. Woven Elecs. Corp. v. Advance Group, Inc., 930 F.2d 913 (Table), 1991 WL 54118, at *6 (4th Cir. Apr. 15, 1991) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978)); see also, e.g., SMD Software, Inc. v. EMove, Inc., No. 5:08-CV-403-FL, 2013 WL 1091054 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2013) (sealing profit and loss statements, pricing, marketing strategies, expense information, and revenue and revenue growth information); ATI Indus. Automation, Inc. v. Applied Robotics, Inc., 801 F. Supp. 2d 419 (M.D.N.C. 2011) (involving trade secrets).

A court must weigh the associated competing interests by giving notice to the public of the request to seal "and a reasonable opportunity to challenge the request," consider "less drastic alternatives to sealing," and, if it decides to seal, state "the reasons (and specific supporting findings) for its decision and the reasons for rejecting alternatives to sealing." Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 181 (4th Cir. 1988).

The Local Civil Rules require that a party claiming confidentiality support the motion to seal with evidence, "including affidavits or declarations". L. Civ. R. 5.4(c)(3). Attorneys' arguments in briefs are not evidence, but their "representation to the Court that documents contain confidential business information can be considered as some evidence" that is "weighed against competing interests." Cochran v. Volvo Group N.A., LLC, 931 F. Supp. 2d 725, 730 (M.D.N.C. 2013).

Here, the parties have commendably narrowly tailored their sealing requests and only on occasion have asked to seal the entirety of a document where no other reasonable alternative exists. The public has had notice of these motions to seal (the earliest of which was filed on August 22, 2022 and the most recent of which was filed on December 6, 2022), often identifying the same information to be sealed, and no objections appear on the record.

This Memorandum Opinion necessarily refers to material the parties have requested be redacted from public view. The purported business interests proffered in support of sealing this information cannot overcome the public's right of access to it. The public must be able to understand the bases upon which the jury decided the case and the Court denied RJR's post-judgment motions. Therefore, to the extent that information subject to the instant motions to seal is revealed in this Memorandum Opinion, those motions to seal are denied.³ Similarly, to the extent information subject to the instant motions to seal is not revealed in this Memorandum Opinion, the motions to seal are granted. In those instances, the business interests noted in the briefs and declarations supporting the motions to seal are significant enough to rebut the public's presumption of access.

II.

A party may move for judgment as a matter of law when "a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the [non-moving] party" and may renew its motion after entry of judgment, Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a), 50(b), as RJR has done here. (See R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company's Rule 50(a) Mot. on Non-Infringement and Damages [Doc. #436]; Reynolds's Rule 50(a) Mot. for J. as a Matter of Law of Invalidity of the Asserted Patents [Doc. #450]; Tr. 1056:23-1073:6 (counsel's arguments in support of and in opposition to RJR's Rule 50(a) motions), 1089:14-15 (the Court taking the motions under advisement).)⁴

The law of the regional circuit governs Rule 50(b) motions. Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 944 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In the Fourth Circuit, "[w]hen a jury verdict has been returned, judgment as a matter of law may be granted only if, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party (and in support of the jury's verdict) and drawing every legitimate inference in that party's favor, the only conclusion a reasonable jury could have reached is one in favor of the moving party." Drummond Coal Sales, Inc. v. Norfolk S. Railway Co., 3 F.4th 605, 610 (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting Int'l Ground Transp. v. Mayor of Ocean City, Md., 475 F.3d 214, 218-19 (4th Cir. 2007)). Stated more simply, "[s]o long as there exists 'evidence upon which a jury could reasonably return a verdict for [the non-moving party],'" judgment as a matter of law will be denied. E.E.O.C. v. Consol Energy, Inc., 860 F.3d 131, 141 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 294, 301 (4th Cir. 1998)). When the court reviews the evidence, "it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); see also Finch v. Covil Corp., 388 F. Supp. 3d 593, 602 (M.D.N.C. 2019) (citing Cline, 144 F.3d at 301).

RJR moves pursuant to Rule 50(b) because, it argues, (1) there is not substantial evidence⁵ of infringement, specifically that the Alto has front/rear "faces" and that it has a separate "vaporizer compartment," (2) the asserted claims are invalid as obvious by the JUUL Articles and anticipated or obvious by the Inova 2.0 Device, (3) there is not substantial evidence supporting pre-suit damages, and (4) there is not substantial evidence supporting the jury's damages award. (See generally Reynolds's...