R.J. Reynolds loses appeal in $95 million Altria e-cigarette patent case

Reuters12-20
R.J. Reynolds loses appeal in $95 million Altria e-cigarette patent case

By Blake Brittain

Dec 19 - A U.S. appeals court on Thursday upheld a $95.2 million jury verdict for tobacco giant Altria MO.N in a patent dispute with rival R.J. Reynolds [RIC:RIC:RAITH.UL] over e-cigarette technology.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a North Carolina jury's decision that vaping devices from RJR's top-selling Vuse line infringed three Altria e-cigarette patents.

Spokespeople and attorneys for RJR and Altria did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the decision.

Richmond, Virginia-based Altria sued RJR in 2020 for infringing patents covering vaping devices with pods for storing and heating liquid nicotine. It asked the court for royalties from sales of RJR's Vuse Alto e-cigarettes.

A jury in Greensboro, N.C., agreed with Altria in 2022 and awarded it $95.2 million in damages for RJR's patent infringement. Winston-Salem, N.C.-based RJR argued to the Federal Circuit that its products did not infringe, the patents were invalid and the damages were excessive.

A three-judge Federal Circuit panel rejected RJR's arguments on Thursday. U.S. Circuit Judge William Bryson said in a partial dissent that he would have granted RJR's request for a new trial on damages unless Altria agreed to give up "approximately half" of the award.

The case is Altria Client Services LLC v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 23-1546.

For Altria: Mark Perry of Weil Gotshal & Manges

For RJR: Jason Burnette of Jones Day

Read more:

Altria wins $95 mln patent verdict from R.J. Reynolds in e-cigarette case

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Comments

We need your insight to fill this gap
Leave a comment