Apple Verdict Form

download Apple Verdict Form

of 12

  • date post

    05-Apr-2018
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    215
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Apple Verdict Form

  • 7/31/2019 Apple Verdict Form

    1/12

    Exhibit A

    Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page1 of 12

  • 7/31/2019 Apple Verdict Form

    2/12

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    APPLES SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORMCASE NO.11-CV01846-LHK(PSG)

    pa-1547512

    HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)hmcelhinny@mofo.comMICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)mjacobs@mofo.comRACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)rkrevans@mofo.comJENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)jtaylor@mofo.comALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)atucher@mofo.comRICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)rhung@mofo.comJASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)jasonbartlett@mofo.comMORRISON & FOERSTER LLP425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482Telephone: (415) 268-7000Facsimile: (415) 268-7522

    Attorneys for Plaintiff andCounterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

    WILLIAM F. LEEwilliam.lee@wilmerhale.comWILMER CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP60 State StreetBoston, MA 02109Telephone: (617) 526-6000Facsimile: (617) 526-5000

    MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.comWILMER CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP950 Page Mill RoadPalo Alto, California 94304Telephone: (650) 858-6000Facsimile: (650) 858-6100

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    SAN JOSE DIVISION

    APPLE INC., a California corporation,

    Plaintiff,

    v.

    SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICSAMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; andSAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONSAMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability

    company,

    Defendants.

    Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

    APPLES SECOND REVISED DRAFTOF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICTFORM

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

  • 7/31/2019 Apple Verdict Form

    3/12

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    pa-1533697

    APPLES SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM

    CASE NO.11-CV-01846-LHK1

    pa-1547512

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

    FINDINGS ON APPLES CLAIMS

    APPLES UTILITY AND DESIGN PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG

    1. For each of the following products, has Apple proven that it is more likely than notthat Samsung infringed the indicated Apple utility patent claims?

    (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (forSamsung). You do not have to provide an answer for any cell that has gray shading.)

    Accused Samsung Product 381 Patent(Claim 19)

    915 Patent(Claim 8)

    163 Patent(Claim 50)

    Intercept (JX1009)

    Vibrant (JX1010)

    Captivate (JX1011)

    Epic 4G (JX1012)

    Fascinate (JX1013)

    Galaxy Ace (JX1030)

    [SEC only]

    Galaxy S (i9000) (JX1007)

    [SEC only]

    Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX1031)

    Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX1032)

    [SEC only]Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX1033)

    Transform (JX1014)

    Mesmerize (JX1015)

    Continuum (JX1016)

    Galaxy Tab (original or 7.0) (JX1036)

    Galaxy S 4G (JX1019)

    Gem (JX1020)

    Galaxy Prevail (JX1022)

    Nexus S 4G (JX1023)

    Replenish (JX1024)

    Droid Charge (JX1025)

    Infuse 4G (JX1027)

    Indulge (JX1026)

    Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and 4G LTE)(JX1037 & JX1038)

    Exhibit 4G (JX1028)

    Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page3 of 12

  • 7/31/2019 Apple Verdict Form

    4/12

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    APPLES SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORMCASE NO.11-CV-01846-LHK

    2

    pa-1547512

    2. For each of the following products, has Apple proven that it is more likely than notthat Samsung infringed the indicated Apple design patents?

    (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (forSamsung). You do not have to provide an answer for any cell that has gray shading.)

    Accused Samsung Product D677Patent

    D087 Patent D305Patent

    Vibrant (JX1010)

    Captivate (JX1011)

    Epic 4G (JX1012)

    Fascinate (JX1013)

    Galaxy Ace (JX1030)[SEC only]

    Galaxy S (i9000) (JX1007)[SEC only]

    Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX1031)

    Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX1032)[SEC only]

    Galaxy S II (T-Mobile)(JX1033)

    Galaxy SII (Epic 4G Touch)(JX1034)

    Galaxy S II (Skyrocket)(JX1035)

    Galaxy S (Showcase i500)(JX1017)

    Mesmerize (JX1015)

    Continuum (JX1016)

    Galaxy S 4G (JX1019)

    Gem (JX1020)

    Droid Charge (JX1025)

    Infuse 4G (JX1027)

    Indulge (JX1026)

    Accused Samsung Product D889 Patent

    Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and 4G LTE)(JX1037 & JX1038)

    Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page4 of 12

  • 7/31/2019 Apple Verdict Form

    5/12

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    APPLES SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORMCASE NO.11-CV-01846-LHK

    3

    pa-1547512

    3. If in response to Question No. 1 or Question No. 2 you found that Samsung hasinfringed any Apple patent(s), has Apple proven that it is highly probable that

    Samsungs infringement was willful?

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

    4. Has Samsung proven that it is highly probable that Apples asserted utility and/ordesign patent claims are invalid?

    381 Patent (Claim 19) Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

    915 Patent (Claim 8) Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

    163 Patent (Claim 50) Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

    D677 Patent Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

    D087 Patent Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

    D889 Patent Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

    D305 Patent Yes _______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple)

    5. Which of the Samsung entities do you find liable for patent infringement?Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Yes _______ No _______

    Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Yes _______ No _______

    Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC Yes _______ No _______

    Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page5 of 12

  • 7/31/2019 Apple Verdict Form

    6/12

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    APPLES SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORMCASE NO.11-CV-01846-LHK

    4

    pa-1547512

    APPLES TRADE DRESS CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG

    Apples Registered Trade Dress:

    6. Has Samsung proven that it is more likely than not that Apples registered iPhone-related trade dress is not valid?

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

    Apples Unregistered Trade Dress:

    7. Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Apples unregistered iPad-relatedtrade dress is valid?

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

    8. Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Apples unregistered iPhone 3Gtrade dress is valid?

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

    9. Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Apples unregisteredcombination iPhone trade dress is valid?

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

    Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1825-1 Filed08/18/12 Page6 of 12

  • 7/31/2019 Apple Verdict Form

    7/12

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    APPLES SECOND REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORMCASE NO.11-CV-01846-LHK

    5

    pa-1547512

    10. For each of the following products, has Apple proven that it is more likely than notthat Samsung diluted and/or infringed the indicated Apple trade dress?

    (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (forSamsung). You do not have to provide an answer for any cell that has gray shading.)

    Accused Samsung Product

    iPhone 3G

    Trade

    Dress

    Dilution

    Combination

    iPhone Trade

    Dress

    Dilution

    Registered

    iPhone

    Trade Dress

    Dilution

    Vibrant (JX1010)

    Captivate (JX1011)

    Epic 4G (JX1012)

    Fascinate (JX1013)

    Galaxy S (i9000) (JX1007) [SEC

    only]Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX1031)

    Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX1032) [SEConly]

    Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX1033)

    Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX1034)

    Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX1035)

    Galaxy S (Showcase i500) (JX1017)

    Mesmerize (JX1015)

    Continuum (JX1016)

    Galaxy S 4G (JX1019)

    Galaxy Prevail (JX1022)

    Galaxy Ace (JX1030) [SEC only]

    Droid Charge (JX1025)

    Infuse 4G (J