Get documents about "103353251-1825-1
Document Sample
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
