Get documents about "103353272-1825-2
Document Sample
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page1 of 19
Exhibit B
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page2 of 19
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)
2 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com
3 50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
4 Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
5
Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
6 kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
7 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
8 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
9 Telephone: (650) 801-5000
Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
10
11 Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com
12 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
13 Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
14
15 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
16 INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
19
20 APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
21 Plaintiff, SAMSUNG‟S PROPOSED SPECIAL
VERDICT FORM
22 v.
23 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
24 AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and Trial: July 30, 2012 at 9 a.m.
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
25 AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,
26
Defendants.
27
28
02198.51855/4915961.5 Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page3 of 19
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 by a preponderance of the
evidence that Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”) infringed the
6 indicated claims of Apple‟s „381, „915 and „163 patents?
7
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
8 Samsung). Do not answer for any cell that contains grey shading).
9 Samsung Product „381 Patent „381 Patent „381 Patent „915 Patent „163 Patent
10 (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 8) (Claim 50)
Web Browser Gallery Contacts Web Browser Web Browser
11 Application Application Application Application Application
Captivate
12
(JX 1011)
13 Android Version:
2.1-update1
14
Continuum
15 (JX 1016)
Android Version:
16 2.1-update1
17 Droid Charge (JX
1025)
18 Android Version:
2.2.1
19
Epic 4G
20 (JX 1012)
Android Version:
21 2.2.1
22 Exhibit 4G
(JX 1028)
23
Android Version:
24 2.3.3
Fascinate
25
(JX 1013)
26 Android Version:
2.2.2
27
28
02198.51855/4915961.5 Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page4 of 19
1 Samsung Product „381 Patent „381 Patent „381 Patent „915 Patent „163 Patent
(Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 8) (Claim 50)
2
Web Browser Gallery Contacts Web Browser Web Browser
3 Application Application Application Application Application
Galaxy Prevail (JX
4 1022)
5 Android Version:
2.2.2
6 Galaxy S II
(AT&T)
7
(JX 1031)
8 Android Version:
2.3.4
9 Galaxy S II (T-
Mobile)
10
(JX 1033)
11 Android Version:
2.3.5
12
Galaxy S 4G (JX
13 1019)
Android Version:
14 2.2.1
Gem
15
(JX 1020)
16 Android Version:
2.1-update1
17
Indulge
18 (JX 1026)
Android Version:
19 2.2.1
20 Infuse 4G
(JX 1027)
21
Android Version:
22 2.2.1
Intercept
23
(JX 1009)
24 Android Version:
2.2.2
25 Mesmerize
26 (JX 1015)
Android Version:
27 2.1-update1
28 Nexus S 4G (JX
02198.51855/4915961.5 -3- Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page5 of 19
1 Samsung Product „381 Patent „381 Patent „381 Patent „915 Patent „163 Patent
(Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 8) (Claim 50)
2
Web Browser Gallery Contacts Web Browser Web Browser
3 Application Application Application Application Application
1023)
4
Android Version:
2.3.4
5
Replenish
6 (JX 1024)
7 Android Version:
2.2.2
8 Transform
9 (JX 1014)
Android Version:
10 2.2.2
11 Vibrant
(JX 1010)
12 Android Version:
2.1-update1
13
Galaxy Tab 7.0 (JX
14 1036)
Android Version:
15 2.3.5
16 Galaxy Tab 10.1
(JX 1037)
17 Android Version:
3.1
18
19 2. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) infringed the indicated
20 claims of Apple‟s ‟381, „915, and „163 patents?
21 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung). Do not answer for any cell that contains grey shading).
22
Samsung Product „381 Patent „381 Patent „381 Patent „915 Patent „163 Patent
23 (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 8) (Claim 50)
24 Web Browser Gallery Contacts Web Browser Web Browser
Application Application Application Application Application
25 Galaxy Tab 7.0 (JX
1036)
26
Android Version:
2.3.5
27
Galaxy Tab 10.1
28
02198.51855/4915961.5 -4- Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page6 of 19
1 (JX 1037)
Android Version:
2 3.1
3
[Samsung does not believe that Apple has properly raised an induced infringement claim, but has
4 listed a proposed verdict form question below in the event the Court disagrees].
5 3. a. If you do not find infringement by STA or SEA, skip this question. Otherwise, for
6 each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), knowing of the patent(s) you found
7 infringed, took action that it knew or should have known would induce STA or SEA to
infringe that patent(s)?1
8
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
9
Samsung). Do not answer for any cell that contains grey shading).
10
Samsung Product „381 Patent „381 Patent „381 Patent „915 Patent „163 Patent
11 (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 8) (Claim 50)
12 Web Gallery Contacts Web Web
Browser Application Application Browser Browser
Application Application Application
13
Captivate
14 (JX 1011)
15 Android Version:
2.1-update1
16 Continuum
17 (JX 1016)
Android Version:
18 2.1-update1
Droid Charge (JX
19
1025)
20 Android Version:
2.2.1
21 Epic 4G
22 (JX 1012)
Android Version:
23 2.2.1
24 Exhibit 4G
(JX 1028)
25 Android Version:
2.3.3
26
27
1
There is no evidence that SEC directly infringed the „381, „915 or „163 patents.
28 Consequently, the verdict form does not include a direct infringement question for SEC.
02198.51855/4915961.5 -5- Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page7 of 19
1 Samsung Product „381 Patent „381 Patent „381 Patent „915 Patent „163 Patent
(Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 8) (Claim 50)
2
Web Gallery Contacts Web Web
3 Browser Application Application Browser Browser
Application Application Application
4 Fascinate
5 (JX 1013)
Android Version:
6 2.2.2
7 Galaxy Prevail (JX
1022)
8 Android Version:
2.2.2
9 Galaxy S II
(AT&T)
10
(JX 1031)
11 Android Version:
2.3.4
12
Galaxy S II (T-
13 Mobile)
(JX 1033)
14 Android Version:
2.3.5
15
Galaxy S 4G (JX
16 1019)
Android Version:
17 2.2.1
18 Gem
(JX 1020)
19 Android Version:
2.1-update1
20
Indulge
21 (JX 1026)
22 Android Version:
2.2.1
23 Infuse 4G
(JX 1027)
24
Android Version:
25 2.2.1
Intercept
26
(JX 1009)
27 Android Version:
2.2.2
28
02198.51855/4915961.5 -6- Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page8 of 19
1 Samsung Product „381 Patent „381 Patent „381 Patent „915 Patent „163 Patent
(Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 8) (Claim 50)
2
Web Gallery Contacts Web Web
3 Browser Application Application Browser Browser
Application Application Application
4 Mesmerize
5 (JX 1015)
Android Version:
6 2.1-update1
7 Nexus S 4G (JX
1023)
8 Android Version:
2.3.4
9 Replenish
10 (JX 1024)
Android Version:
11 2.2.2
12 Transform
(JX 1014)
13 Android Version:
2.2.2
14
Vibrant
15 (JX 1010)
16 Android Version:
2.1-update1
17 Galaxy Tab 7.0
(JX 1036)
18 Android Version:
2.3.5
19
Galaxy Tab 10.1
20 (JX 1037)
21 Android Version:
3.1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4915961.5 -7- Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page9 of 19
1
b. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the
2 evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), knowing of the patent(s) you
3 found infringed, took action that it knew or should have known would induce anyone
other than STA or SEA to infringe that patent(s):
4
Samsung Product „381 Patent „381 Patent „381 Patent „915 Patent „163 Patent
5 (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 8) (Claim 50)
6 Web Gallery Contacts Web Web
Browser Application Application Browser Browser
7 Application Application Application
Galaxy Ace
8
(JX 1030)
9 Android Version:
2.2.1
10 Galaxy S (i9000)
(JX 1007)
11
Android Version:
12 2.2.1
Galaxy S II
13 (i9100)
14 (JX 1032)
Android Version:
15 2.3.3
16
17 4. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that SEA or STA infringed the indicated Apple design patents?
18
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
19 Samsung). Do not answer for any cell that contains gray shading).
20
Accused Samsung Product D‟677 D‟087 D‟305
21 Patent Patent Patent
22 Captivate (AT&T) (JX 1011)
23 Continuum (AT&T) (JX 1016)
24 Droid Charge (Verizon) (JX 1025)
25 Epic 4G (Sprint) (JX 1012)
26 Fascinate (Verizon) (JX 1013)
27 Galaxy S 4G (T-Mobile) (JX 1019)
28
02198.51855/4915961.5 -8- Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page10 of 19
1
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
2
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
3
Galaxy S II Skyrocket (JX 1035)
4
Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (JX 1034)
5
Gem (U.S. Cellular) (JX 1020)
6
Indulge (Cricket Communications)
7 (JX 1026)
8 Infuse 4G (AT&T) (JX 1027)
9
Mesmerize (US Cellular) (JX 1015)
10
Showcase i500 (C-Spire) (JX 1017)
11
Vibrant (T-Mobile) (JX 1010)
12
13 Accused Samsung Product D‟889 Patent
14 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (logo on front)
15 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (no logo on front)
16 [Samsung does not believe that Apple has properly raised an induced infringement claim, but has
listed a proposed verdict form question below in the event the Court disagrees].
17
18 5. a. Did Apple prove by a preponderance of the evidence that SEC, knowing of any
Apple design patent you found to be infringed, took action that it knew or should have
19 known would induce anyone other than STA or SEA to infringe any of the following
patents:
20
21 Accused Samsung Product D‟677 D‟087 Patent D‟305
Patent Patent
22 Galaxy Ace
Galaxy S (i9000)
23
Galaxy S II (i9100)
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4915961.5 -9- Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page11 of 19
1
2 b. If you did not find infringement by STA or SEA in Question 4, skip this question.
3 Otherwise, do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
SEC, knowing of any Apple design patent you found to be infringed, took action that it
4 knew or should have known would induce STA and/or SEA to infringe that patent?
5 Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)
6 6. If in response to Question Nos. 1-5 you found that any Samsung entity has infringed
7 any Apple patent(s), has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that the
Samsung entity actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an
8 unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable Apple patent?
9 Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)
10
If “yes,” please fill in the table below with a “Y” for any Samsung entity that you
11 found actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably
high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable Apple patent:
12
13 Entity „381 „915 „163 D‟677 D‟087 D‟889 D‟305
Patent Patent Patent Patent Patent Patent Patent
14 (Claim 19) (Claim 8) (Claim 50)
15 STA
SEA
16 SEC
17
7. Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple‟s asserted utility
18 and/or design patent claims are invalid?
19 „381 Patent (Claim 19) Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
20
„915 Patent (Claim 8) Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
21
„163 Patent (Claim 50) Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
22
D‟677 Patent Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
23
24 D‟087 Patent Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
25 D‟889 Patent Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
26 D‟305 Patent Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
27
28
02198.51855/4915961.5 -10- Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page12 of 19
1 APPLE‟S TRADE DRESS CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG
2 8. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that its asserted unregistered
3 trade dresses are protectable?
4 Unregistered Claimed iPhone trade dress
5 Yes _____ (for Apple) No ____ (for Samsung)
6 Unregistered Claimed Combined iPhone trade dress
7 Yes _____ (for Apple) No ____ (for Samsung)
8 Unregistered Claimed iPad trade dress
9
Yes _____ (for Apple) No ____ (for Samsung)
10
9. Has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple‟s registered
11 iPhone trade dress is not protectable?
12 Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
13
10. For each asserted trade dress you found protectable in response to Questions 8 and 9,
14 has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the asserted trade dress was
famous before the time of Samsung‟s alleged use?
15
In the chart of Question 12, please answer in the “Famous” row in the cell
16 corresponding to each asserted trade dress column with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), an
“N” for “no” (for Samsung), or “N/A” for not applicable if the asserted trade dress
17
was not found protectable. Do not answer for any cell that contains gray shading.
18
11. For only those products for which you answered “Y” or “yes” in the “Famous” row in
19 the chart of Question 12, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
Samsung diluted the indicated Apple trade dress?
20
In the chart of Question 12, please answer in each cell corresponding to an accused
21
product with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung). Do
22 not answer for any cell that contains gray shading.
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4915961.5 -11- Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page13 of 19
1 12. Please complete the chart below using your responses to Questions 10 – 11.
2
Dilution
3
Claimed
4 Claimed Claimed registered
Accused Samsung Product iPhone iPhone 3 iPhone
5 Trade Dress Trade Dress Trade Dress
6 Famous?
Galaxy S Captivate (JX 1011)
7
Galaxy S Continuum (JX 1016)
8 Droid Charge (JX 1025)
9 Galaxy S Epic 4G (JX 1012)
10 Fascinate (Verizon)
(JX 1013)
11 Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
12 Galaxy S 4G (T-Mobile)
(JX 1019)
13
Galaxy S II (AT&T)
14 (JX 1031)
15 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile)
(JX 1033)
16 Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (JX
17 1034)
Galaxy S II Skyrocket
18 (JX 1035)
19 Infuse 4G (AT&T)
(JX 1027)
20
Mesmerize (Verizon)
21 (JX 1015)
22 Showcase i500 (C-Spire)
(JX 1017)
23 Vibrant (T-Mobile)
24 (JX 1010)
25
Accused Samsung Product Dilution of claimed iPad Trade Dress
26
Is the asserted iPad Trade dress Famous?
27
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (logo on front)
28
02198.51855/4915961.5 -12- Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page14 of 19
1
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (no logo on front)
2
3 13. If you answered “yes” to Question 8 for Apple‟s asserted iPad/iPad2 trade dress, has
Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung infringed the asserted
4 trade dress you found protectable?
5 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (logo on front)
6 Yes _____ (for Apple) No ____ (for Samsung)
7
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (no logo on front)
8
Yes _____ (for Apple) No ____ (for Samsung)
9
14. If you responded “Y” or “yes” to Questions 12 or 13, which of the Samsung entities do
10 you find liable?
11
STA Yes _______ No _______
12 SEA Yes _______ No _______
13 [Samsung does not believe that induced infringement is appropriate for Apple’s trade dress
claims, but has listed a proposed verdict form question below in the event the Court disagrees].
14
15 15. a. Did Apple prove by a preponderance of the evidence that SEC, knowing of any
asserted Apple trade dress you found to be infringed, took action that it knew or
16 should have known would induce anyone other than STA or SEA to infringe any of the
following patents:
17
Accused Samsung Product Claimed
18 Claimed Claimed registered
iPhone iPhone 3 iPhone
19
Trade Dress Trade Dress Trade Dress
20
Galaxy Ace
21 Galaxy S (i9000)
Galaxy S II (i9100)
22
23 b. If you did not find infringement by STA or SEA, skip this question. Otherwise,
has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that SEC, knowing of Apple‟s
24 unregistered iPad trade dress, took action that it knew or should have known would
25 induce STA or SEA to infringe the iPad trade dress?
26 Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)
27
28
02198.51855/4915961.5 -13- Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page15 of 19
1 16. If you found STA and/or SEA liable on any Apple trade dress dilution claim, do you
find by clear and convincing evidence that it diluted and willfully intended to cause
2 dilution of the trade dress?
3 STA Yes_______ No______
SEA Yes_______ No______
4
17. If you found STA and/or SEA liable on any Apple trade dress dilution claim, did
5 Apple prove by a preponderance of the evidence that STA‟s or SEA‟s alleged use of
the trade dress in fact injured or harmed the trade dress?
6
7 STA Yes _______ No _______
SEA Yes _______ No _______
8
18. If you found STA, SEA, and/or SEC liable on Apple‟s trade dress infringement claim,
9 do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence both (a) that
STA‟s and/or SEA‟s alleged use of the trade dress is likely to cause confusion among
10
prospective purchasers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or approval of the
11 accused Samsung product and (b) that there was actual consumer confusion or that
STA‟s and/or SEA‟s actions were intentionally deceptive?
12
STA Yes______ No______
13 SEA Yes______ No______
SEC Yes______ No______
14
15 19. If you found STA, SEA and/or SEC liable on Apple‟s trade dress infringement claim,
do you find by clear and convincing evidence that STA, SEA and/or SEC willfully
16 intended to infringe the trade dress?
17 STA Yes______ No______
SEA Yes______ No______
18
SEC Yes______ No______
19
DAMAGES TO APPLE FROM SAMSUNG
20
20. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that its iPhone and iPad
21 products practice the asserted patent claims?
22
Please fill in the table below with a “Y” for any Apple product that you found
23 practiced the asserted patent claim: (Do not answer for any cell that contains gray
shading).
24
25 Entity „381 „915 „163 D‟677 D‟087 D‟889 D‟305
Patent Patent Patent Patent Patent Patent Patent
26 (Claim 19) (Claim 8) (Claim 50)
27 STA
SEA
28
02198.51855/4915961.5 -14- Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page16 of 19
1 SEC
2 21. On what dates did Apple provide actual notice to STA, SEA, and SEC of Apple‟s
patents?
3
Entity „381 „915 „163 D‟677 D‟087 D‟889 D‟305
4 Patent Patent Patent Patent Patent Patent Patent
5 STA
SEA
6
SEC
7
22. What is the amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung on the claims on
8 which you have ruled in favor of Apple, if any?
9
$__________________.
10
23. If you find that Apple is entitled to receive damages from Samsung, which Samsung
11 entities are responsible for those damages?
12 STA Yes______ No______
13 SEA Yes______ No______
SEC Yes______ No______
14
24. If you find that Apple is entitled to receive damages from Samsung, how is the total
15 amount of damages stated in Question 22 divided?
16
Lost profits $__________
17 Reasonable royalty $__________
Samsung‟s profits $__________
18
19 FINDINGS ON SAMSUNG‟S CLAIMS
20
SAMSUNG‟S UTILITY PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST APPLE
21
25. For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the
22 evidence that Apple infringed the indicated Samsung utility patent claims?
23 (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.)
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4915961.5 -15- Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page17 of 19
„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
(JX 1053)
iPhone
3GS
(JX 1054
and JX
1076)
iPhone 4
(JX 1055
and JX
1056)
iPad2 3G
(JX 1050
and JX
1051)
iPod
Touch
4th Gen.
(JX 1057
and JX
1077)
198.51855/4915961.5 -16 Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page18 of 19
1 26. If in response to Question No. 25 you found that Apple has infringed any Samsung
patent(s), has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple actually
2 knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk of
3 infringement of a valid and enforceable Samsung patent?
4 Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
5 27. Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that Samsung‟s asserted utility
patent claims are invalid?
6
7 „516 Patent (only as to obviousness)
8 Claim 15: Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)
Claim 16: Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)
9
„941 Patent (on all bases)
10
11 Claim 10: Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)
Claim 15: Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)
12
„711 Patent (only as to obviousness)
13
Claim 9: Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)
14
15 „893 Patent (on all bases)
16 Claim 10: Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)
17 „460 Patent (only as to obviousness)
18
Claim 1: Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)
19
20 DAMAGES TO SAMSUNG FROM APPLE
21 28. 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 29. 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?
25
26 $______________________.
27
28
02198.51855/4915961.5 Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-2 Filed08/18/12 Page19 of 19
1 FINDINGS ON APPLE‟S COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG
2 BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS AND ANTITRUST
3
30. Has Apple proven that Samsung breached its contractual obligations by failing to
4 timely disclose its intellectual property rights (“IPR”) during the creation of the
UMTS standard or by failing to license its “declared essential” patents on fair,
5 reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms?
6 Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)
7
31. Has Apple proven that Samsung has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
8 by monopolizing one or more technology markets related to the UMTS standard?
9 Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)
10
32. If you answered “Yes” to Question No. 30 or Question No. 31, what is the dollar
11 amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung for Samsung‟s antitrust
violation and/or breach of contract?
12
$___________________________.
13
PATENT EXHAUSTION
14
15 33. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung is barred by
patent exhaustion from enforcing the following Samsung patents against Apple?
16
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
17 Samsung).)
18
Samsung Patent Exhaustion
19
„516 Patent
20
21 „941 Patent
22
23
24
Have the presiding juror sign and date this form.
25
26
Signed:________________________________ Date:_______________________________
27
PRESIDING JUROR
28
02198.51855/4915961.5 -18 Case No. 11-cv-01846
SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
