103353251-1825-1

Document Sample
103353251-1825-1 Powered By Docstoc
					Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page1 of 12




                Exhibit A
      Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page2 of 12



 1   HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)                 WILLIAM F. LEE
     hmcelhinny@mofo.com                                william.lee@wilmerhale.com
 2   MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)                  WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
     mjacobs@mofo.com                                   HALE AND DORR LLP
 3   RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)                     60 State Street
     rkrevans@mofo.com                                  Boston, MA 02109
 4   JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)                Telephone: (617) 526-6000
     jtaylor@mofo.com                                   Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
 5   ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
     atucher@mofo.com
 6   RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)                  MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
     rhung@mofo.com                                     mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
 7   JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)                  WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
     jasonbartlett@mofo.com                             HALE AND DORR LLP
 8   MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP                            950 Page Mill Road
     425 Market Street                                  Palo Alto, California 94304
 9   San Francisco, California 94105-2482               Telephone: (650) 858-6000
     Telephone: (415) 268-7000                          Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
10   Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
11

12   Attorneys for Plaintiff and
     Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.
13

14

15                                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16                             NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17                                        SAN JOSE DIVISION

18   APPLE INC., a California corporation,                 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
19                     Plaintiff,                          APPLE’S SECOND REVISED DRAFT
                                                           OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT
20          v.                                             FORM
21   SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
     Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
22   AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and
     SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
23   AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
     company,
24
                       Defendants.
25

26

27

28
     APPLE’S SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
     CASE NO. 11-CV01846-LHK (PSG)
     pa-1547512
      Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page3 of 12



 1   We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them under
     the instructions of this Court as our verdict in this case.
 2

 3                                  FINDINGS ON APPLE’S CLAIMS

 4   APPLE’S UTILITY AND DESIGN PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG

 5   1.     For each of the following products, has Apple proven that it is more likely than not
            that Samsung infringed the indicated Apple utility patent claims?
 6

 7           (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
             Samsung). You do not have to provide an answer for any cell that has gray shading.)
 8
               Accused Samsung Product               ’381 Patent       ’915 Patent      ’163 Patent
 9                                                   (Claim 19)         (Claim 8)       (Claim 50)
          Intercept (JX1009)
10
          Vibrant (JX1010)
11        Captivate (JX1011)
12        Epic 4G (JX1012)
          Fascinate (JX1013)
13        Galaxy Ace (JX1030)
          [SEC only]
14
          Galaxy S (i9000) (JX1007)
15        [SEC only]
          Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX1031)
16
          Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX1032)
17        [SEC only]
          Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX1033)
18
          Transform (JX1014)
19        Mesmerize (JX1015)
          Continuum (JX1016)
20
          Galaxy Tab (original or 7.0) (JX1036)
21        Galaxy S 4G (JX1019)
22        Gem (JX1020)
          Galaxy Prevail (JX1022)
23        Nexus S 4G (JX1023)
24        Replenish (JX1024)
          Droid Charge (JX1025)
25        Infuse 4G (JX1027)
26        Indulge (JX1026)
          Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and 4G LTE)
27        (JX1037 & JX1038)
28        Exhibit 4G (JX1028)

     APPLE’S SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
     CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
                                                                                                          1
     pa-1533697
     pa-1547512
      Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page4 of 12



 1   2.   For each of the following products, has Apple proven that it is more likely than not
          that Samsung infringed the indicated Apple design patents?
 2

 3         (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
           Samsung). You do not have to provide an answer for any cell that has gray shading.)
 4
               Accused Samsung Product              D’677       D’087 Patent        D’305
 5                                                  Patent                          Patent
             Vibrant (JX1010)
 6
             Captivate (JX1011)
 7           Epic 4G (JX1012)
             Fascinate (JX1013)
 8
             Galaxy Ace (JX1030)
 9           [SEC only]
             Galaxy S (i9000) (JX1007)
10           [SEC only]
11           Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX1031)
             Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX1032)
12           [SEC only]
13           Galaxy S II (T-Mobile)
             (JX1033)
14           Galaxy SII (Epic 4G Touch)
             (JX1034)
15           Galaxy S II (Skyrocket)
             (JX1035)
16
             Galaxy S (Showcase i500)
17           (JX1017)
             Mesmerize (JX1015)
18           Continuum (JX1016)
19           Galaxy S 4G (JX1019)
             Gem (JX1020)
20
             Droid Charge (JX1025)
21           Infuse 4G (JX1027)
             Indulge (JX1026)
22

23                    Accused Samsung Product                           D’889 Patent
             Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and 4G LTE)
24           (JX1037 & JX1038)
25

26

27

28
     APPLE’S SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
     CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
                                                                                                        2
     pa-1547512
      Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page5 of 12



 1   3.   If in response to Question No. 1 or Question No. 2 you found that Samsung has
          infringed any Apple patent(s), has Apple proven that it is highly probable that
 2        Samsung’s infringement was willful?
 3
                           Yes _______ (for Apple)       No _______ (for Samsung)
 4
     4.   Has Samsung proven that it is highly probable that Apple’s asserted utility and/or
 5        design patent claims are invalid?
 6        ’381 Patent (Claim 19)          Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
 7
          ’915 Patent (Claim 8)           Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
 8
          ’163 Patent (Claim 50)          Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
 9
           D’677 Patent                   Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
10

11         D’087 Patent                   Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

12         D’889 Patent                   Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

13         D’305 Patent                   Yes _______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple)
14

15   5.   Which of the Samsung entities do you find liable for patent infringement?

16          Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.                        Yes _______ No _______
17          Samsung Electronics America, Inc.                    Yes _______ No _______
18
            Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC              Yes _______ No _______
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
     APPLE’S SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
     CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
                                                                                               3
     pa-1547512
      Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page6 of 12



 1   APPLE’S TRADE DRESS CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG
 2   Apple’s Registered Trade Dress:
 3
     6.   Has Samsung proven that it is more likely than not that Apple’s registered iPhone-
 4        related trade dress is not valid?

 5                  Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
 6   Apple’s Unregistered Trade Dress:
 7
     7.   Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Apple’s unregistered iPad-related
 8        trade dress is valid?

 9                  Yes _______ (for Apple)       No _______ (for Samsung)
10

11   8.   Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Apple’s unregistered iPhone 3G
          trade dress is valid?
12
                    Yes _______ (for Apple)       No _______ (for Samsung)
13

14
     9.   Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Apple’s unregistered
15        combination iPhone trade dress is valid?

16                  Yes _______ (for Apple)       No _______ (for Samsung)
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
     APPLE’S SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
     CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
                                                                                                 4
     pa-1547512
      Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page7 of 12



 1   10.   For each of the following products, has Apple proven that it is more likely than not
           that Samsung diluted and/or infringed the indicated Apple trade dress?
 2

 3          (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
            Samsung). You do not have to provide an answer for any cell that has gray shading.)
 4
                                                iPhone 3G         Combination            Registered
 5                                                Trade           iPhone Trade            iPhone
           Accused Samsung Product
 6                                                Dress               Dress             Trade Dress
                                                 Dilution           Dilution              Dilution
 7   Vibrant (JX1010)
 8   Captivate (JX1011)
     Epic 4G (JX1012)
 9
     Fascinate (JX1013)
10   Galaxy S (i9000) (JX1007)      [SEC
     only]
11
     Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX1031)
12   Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX1032) [SEC
13   only]
     Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX1033)
14
     Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX1034)
15   Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX1035)
16   Galaxy S (Showcase i500) (JX1017)
     Mesmerize (JX1015)
17
     Continuum (JX1016)
18   Galaxy S 4G (JX1019)
19   Galaxy Prevail (JX1022)
     Galaxy Ace (JX1030) [SEC only]
20
     Droid Charge (JX1025)
21   Infuse 4G (JX1027)
22
                                                                    iPad              iPad
23                    Accused Samsung Product                    Trade Dress       Trade Dress
24                                                                Dilution        Infringement
           Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and 4G LTE)
25         (JX1037 & JX1038)
26

27

28
     APPLE’S SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
     CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
                                                                                                         5
     pa-1547512
      Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page8 of 12



 1   11.   Which of the Samsung entities do you find liable for Apple’s trade dress claims?
 2          Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.                        Yes _______ No _______
 3
            Samsung Electronics America, Inc.                    Yes _______ No _______
 4
            Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC              Yes _______ No _______
 5
     12.   If in response to Question No. 10 you found that Samsung has infringed or diluted any
 6         Apple trade dress, has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Samsung’s
 7         infringement was willful?

 8                         Yes _______ (for Apple)       No _______ (for Samsung)

 9
     DAMAGES TO APPLE FROM SAMSUNG
10

11   13.   What is the dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung on the
           claims on which you have ruled in favor of Apple?
12

13                  $____________________________________________.
14

15

16                              FINDINGS ON SAMSUNG’S CLAIMS
17   SAMSUNG’S UTILITY PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST APPLE
18
     14.   For each of the following products, has Samsung proven that it is more likely than not
19         that Apple infringed the indicated Samsung utility patent claims?

20         (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Samsung), or with an “N” for “no”
           (for Apple). You do not have to provide an answer for any cell that contains gray shading.)
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
     APPLE’S SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
     CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
                                                                                                     6
     pa-1547512
                          Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page9 of 12




                                                                                   ’711       ’893      ’460
               Accused            ’516 Patent                   ’941 Patent       Patent     Patent    Patent
                Apple
               Product
                            Claim 15      Claim 16      Claim 10       Claim 15   Claim 9   Claim 10   Claim 1

              iPhone 3G
               (JX1053)

               iPhone
                3GS
             (JX1054 &
              JX1076)

              iPhone 4
             (JX1055 &
              JX1056)

              iPad 2 3G
             (JX1050 &
               JX1051)

                iPod
               Touch
                 4th
             Generation
             (JX1057 &
              JX1077)




APPLE’S SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
                                                                                                                 7
pa-1547512
     Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page10 of 12



 1   15.   If in response to Question No. 14 you found that Apple has infringed any Samsung
           patent(s), has Samsung proven that it is highly probable that Apple’s infringement was
 2         willful?
 3
                           Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
 4

 5   16.   Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that Samsung’s asserted utility patent
           claims are invalid?
 6

 7         ’516 Patent

 8           Claim 15:     Yes _______ (for Apple)       No _______ (for Samsung)
             Claim 16:     Yes _______ (for Apple)       No _______ (for Samsung)
 9
           ’941 Patent
10

11           Claim 10:     Yes _______ (for Apple)       No _______ (for Samsung)
             Claim 15:     Yes _______ (for Apple)       No _______ (for Samsung)
12
           ’711 Patent
13
             Claim 9:      Yes _______ (for Apple)       No _______ (for Samsung)
14

15         ’893 Patent

16           Claim 10:     Yes _______ (for Apple)       No _______ (for Samsung)
17         ’460 Patent
18
             Claim 1:      Yes _______ (for Apple)       No _______ (for Samsung)
19

20   DAMAGES TO SAMSUNG FROM APPLE
21   17.   What is the dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for
22         Samsung’s utility patent infringement claims on the ’516 and ’941 patents?

23
                    $____________________________________________.
24

25

26

27

28
     APPLE’S SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
     CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
                                                                                                8
     pa-1547512
     Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page11 of 12



 1   18.   What is the dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for
           Samsung’s utility patent infringement claims on the ’711, ’893, and ’460 patents?
 2

 3
                    $____________________________________________.
 4

 5
                FINDINGS ON APPLE’S COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG
 6

 7   BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS AND ANTITRUST

 8   19.   Has Apple proven that Samsung breached its contractual obligations by failing to
           timely disclose its intellectual property rights (“IPR”) during the creation of the
 9         UMTS standard or by failing to license its “declared essential” patents on fair,
           reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms?
10

11          Yes _______ (for Apple)       No _______ (for Samsung)

12
     20.   Has Apple proven that Samsung has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
13         by monopolizing one or more technology markets related to the UMTS standard?
14
            Yes _______ (for Apple)       No _______ (for Samsung)
15

16   21.   If you answered “Yes” to Question No. 19 or Question No. 20, what is the dollar
           amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung for Samsung’s antitrust
17         violation and/or breach of contract?
18
            $____________________________________________.
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
     APPLE’S SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
     CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
                                                                                                 9
     pa-1547512
     Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page12 of 12



 1   PATENT EXHAUSTION AND EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
 2   22.   Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Samsung is barred by patent
 3         exhaustion or equitable estoppel from enforcing the following Samsung patents against
           Apple?
 4
            (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
 5          Samsung).)
 6

 7            Samsung Patent                  Exhaustion                 Equitable Estoppel
 8
       ’516 Patent
 9
       ’941 Patent
10

11
     WAIVER
12
     23.   Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that Samsung has waived its
13         rights to enforce the following Samsung patents against Apple?
14
           ’516 Patent             Yes _______ (for Apple)        No _______ (for Samsung)
15
           ’941 Patent             Yes _______ (for Apple)        No _______ (for Samsung)
16

17

18

19

20
     Have the presiding juror sign and date this form.
21

22
     Signed:____________________________________ Date:_______________________________
23
                                                                         PRESIDING JUROR
24

25

26

27

28
     APPLE’S SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
     CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
                                                                                                         10
     pa-1547512

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4167
posted:8/20/2012
language:Latin
pages:12