IP Law Daily, SUPREME COURT NEWS: High Court declines review in Trudell and Altria patent cases, (Oct 9, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Petitions sought review of Federal Circuit rulings on the “built-in apportionment” damages doctrine and shortened pre-trial deadlines.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in two patent cases, leaving in place Federal Circuit decisions addressing evidentiary and damages issues in ongoing infringement disputes. The petitions were filed by D.R. Burton Healthcare LLC and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. Each denial was issued without comment (R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Altria Client Services LLC, Dkt. No. 25-158 (U.S. cert. denied Oct. 6, 2025); D.R. Burton Healthcare LLC v. Trudell Medical International Inc., Dkt. No. 25-17 (U.S. cert. denied Oct. 6, 2025)).

R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Altria Client Services LLC. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s endorsement of the “built-in apportionment” exception to patent damages apportionment. The case arose from a $95.2 million jury verdict in favor of Altria Client Services LLC, which accused Reynolds’s VUSE Alto e-cigarette of infringing three patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 10,299,517, 10,485,269, and 10,492,541—relating to pod-based vaporizer configurations.

At trial, Altria’s damages expert relied on two earlier license agreements between Fontem Ventures and the parties’ affiliates. Extracting a 5.25% royalty rate from those portfolio licenses, the expert applied the rate directly to Reynolds’s product sales, asserting that it already contained “built-in” apportionment for unpatented features. The district court allowed the testimony, instructing the jury that it could accept the royalty rate if it found the licenses “technologically comparable.” The jury awarded $95.2 million, and the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Reynolds’s petition contended that the “built-in apportionment” doctrine conflicts with the Supreme Court’s long-standing apportionment precedent, including Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120 (1884), and Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Moline Plow Co., 235 U.S. 641 (1915), which requires patentees to segregate the value attributable to the patented feature from unpatented elements.

The petition also cited the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, 137 F.4th 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2025), which emphasized that expert damages opinions must be tied to concrete economic evidence. Reynolds urged the Court to reverse or remand for reconsideration under EcoFactor, arguing that Altria’s damages model violated the apportionment rule by treating prior licenses as presumptively apportioned.

The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari leaves the Federal Circuit’s approach undisturbed and the damages award intact.

D R Burton Healthcare v. Trudell Medical International. D R Burton Healthcare had sought Supreme Court review of a February 2025 Federal Circuit ruling that affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the Eastern District of North Carolina’s post-trial decisions in Trudell Medical International Inc. v. D R Burton Healthcare LLC. D R Burton’s petition for certiorari argued that the district court’s actions in substantially reducing the time to trial violated its right to due process.

The underlying dispute involved Trudell’s U.S. Patent No. 9,808,588, covering portable devices for performing oscillatory positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) therapy. The jury found the asserted claims valid but not infringed. Trudell moved for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial, arguing that the district court had improperly admitted expert testimony on non-infringement. The district court denied both motions. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by allowing testimony from D R Burton’s expert, Dr. John Collins, whose opinions were untimely disclosed and inconsistent with the court’s claim construction rulings. The appellate panel concluded that the late and unreliable expert testimony prejudiced the jury’s verdict.

The question presented by D R Burton’s petition was “Whether a district court’s order changing the time to trial in its case management order from at least 326 days to 146 days, and its time for completion of all discovery (including expert discovery) from 231 days to 108 days, constitutes a fair legal procedure under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment?”

The Cases are Dkt. No. 25-158 and Dkt. No. 25-17.

Attorneys: Jason T. Burnette (Jones Day) for R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. Mark Andrew Perry (Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP) for Altria Client Services LLC. Albert P. Allan (Allan Law Firm, PLLC) for D R Burton Healthcare LLC. David Paul Lindner (Crowell & Mooring LLP) for Trudell Medical International Inc.

Companies: R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.; Altria Client Services LLC; D R Burton Healthcare LLC; Trudell Medical International Inc.

News: Patent FedCirNews