Strojnik v. Costar Realty Information, Inc. et al

Filing 145

Download PDF
Strojnik v. Costar Realty Information, Inc. et al Doc. 14 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 Craig A. Marvinney, 0004951 (OH) John M. Skeriotis, 0069263 (OH) Anastasia J. Wade, 0082797 (OH) BROUSE MCDOWELL 388 S. Main Street, Suite 500 Akron, Ohio 44311-4407 Telephone: 330-535-5711 Email: cmarvinney@brouse.com, jskeriotis@brouse.com, awade @ b r o u s e . c o m Admitted pro hac vice Donald L. Myles, Jr., 007464 (AZ) JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: 602-263-1700 Email: dmyles@jshfirm.com Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA SOILWORKS, LLC, an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff / Counterdefendant / Counterclaimant, v. MIDWEST INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC., an Ohio corporation authorized to do business in Arizona, Defendant / Counterclaimant / Counterdefendant. As part of the Court's October 16, 2008 Order (ECF Docket No. 135), the Court requested that the parties jointly file jury verdict forms. The parties were unable to agree on one set of proposed jury verdict forms. Thus, the parties decided to each submit their own version of the requested proposed verdict forms. According to the Court's October 1 NO.: 2:06-CV-2141-DGC MIDWEST INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC.'S PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS Dockets.Justia.com 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 16, 2008 Order, the Court's requested verdict forms should "clearly identify the issues to be decided by the jury." Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc. asserts that its proposed jury verdict forms comply with the Court's Order and respectfully submits the following. 2 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 _________________________ Juror 6 _________________________ Juror 1 _________________________ Juror 2 _________________________ Juror 3 _________________________ Juror 4 _________________________ Juror 5 1b. VERDICT FORM # 1 Soilworks' False Advertising Cause of Action 1a. Do you find by the greater weight of the evidence that Midwest advertised a false or misleading statement of fact about Soilworks or Soilworks' products which deceived Soilworks' customers and injured Soilworks? ______ Yes ______ No If you answered "Yes" to 1a, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Midwest made the statements in bad faith? ______ Yes ______ No ______________________________ Juror 7 ______________________________ Juror 8 ______________________________ Juror 9 ______________________________ Juror 10 ______________________________ Juror 11 ______________________________ Foreperson Please proceed to Verdict Form #2. 3 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 _________________________ Juror 2 _________________________ Juror 3 _________________________ Juror 4 _________________________ Juror 5 _________________________ Juror 6 _________________________ Juror 1 2. VERDICT FORM #2 Midwest's False Advertising Cause of Action Do you find by the greater weight of the evidence that Soilworks advertised a false or misleading statement of fact about Soilworks' own products which deceived Midwest's customers and injured Midwest? ______ Yes ______ No ______________________________ Juror 7 ______________________________ Juror 8 ______________________________ Juror 9 ______________________________ Juror 10 ______________________________ Juror 11 ______________________________ Foreperson Please proceed to Verdict Form #3. 4 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 _________________________ Juror 3 _________________________ Juror 4 _________________________ Juror 5 _________________________ Juror 6 _________________________ Juror 1 _________________________ Juror 2 3b. 3a. VERDICT FORM #3 Midwest's Trademark Infringement Cause of Action Do you find that Soilworks willfully or deliberately infringed Midwest's Soil- Sement trademark entitling Midwest to monetary relief? _____ Yes _____ No If your answer is "Yes" to 3a, please indicate the amount of damages Midwest is entitled to: Actual Damages Soilworks' Profits $__________ $__________ ______________________________ Juror 7 ______________________________ Juror 8 ______________________________ Juror 9 ______________________________ Juror 10 ______________________________ Juror 11 ______________________________ Foreperson Please proceed to Verdict Form #4. 5 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 _________________________ Juror 2 _________________________ Juror 3 _________________________ Juror 4 _________________________ Juror 5 _________________________ Juror 6 _________________________ Juror 1 VERDICT FORM #4 Midwest's Patent Infringement Cause of Action Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,074,266 4a. Do you find by the greater weight of the evidence that Soilworks' Durasoil product contains a synthetic isoalkane? _____ Yes ______ No ______________________________ Juror 7 ______________________________ Juror 8 ______________________________ Juror 9 ______________________________ Juror 10 ______________________________ Juror 11 ______________________________ Foreperson If your answer is "Yes" to 4a, please proceed to Question 4b. If your answer is "No" to 4a, please proceed to Verdict Form #5. 6 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 4b. Do you find by the greater weight of the evidence that Soilworks' Durasoil product contains a binder that is a carboxylic acid, an ester or a thermoplastic polyolefin? _____ Yes ______ No _________________________ Juror 1 _________________________ Juror 2 _________________________ Juror 3 _________________________ Juror 4 _________________________ Juror 5 _________________________ Juror 6 ______________________________ Juror 7 ______________________________ Juror 8 ______________________________ Juror 9 ______________________________ Juror 10 ______________________________ Juror 11 ______________________________ Foreperson Please proceed to Question 4c. 7 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 4c. Do you find by the greater weight of the evidence that Soilworks' Durasoil product contains an ingredient that is equivalent to a binder and is a carboxylic acid, an ester or a thermoplastic polyolefin? _____ Yes ______ No _________________________ Juror 1 _________________________ Juror 2 _________________________ Juror 3 _________________________ Juror 4 _________________________ Juror 5 _________________________ Juror 6 ______________________________ Juror 7 ______________________________ Juror 8 ______________________________ Juror 9 ______________________________ Juror 10 ______________________________ Juror 11 ______________________________ Foreperson If your answers are "Yes" to either 4b or 4c, please proceed to Question 4d. If your answers are "No" to both 4b and 4c, then please proceed to Verdict Form #5. 8 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 9 Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,074,266 4d. Do you find by the greater weight of the evidence that Soilworks' Durasoil product's synthetic isoalkane is a synthetic or semi-synthetic hydrocarbon? _____ Yes ______ No _________________________ Juror 1 _________________________ Juror 2 _________________________ Juror 3 _________________________ Juror 4 _________________________ Juror 5 _________________________ Juror 6 ______________________________ Juror 7 ______________________________ Juror 8 ______________________________ Juror 9 ______________________________ Juror 10 ______________________________ Juror 11 ______________________________ Foreperson If your answer is "Yes" to 4d, please proceed to Question 4e. If your answer is "No" to 4d, please proceed to Question 4g (damages). 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 Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 7,074,266 4e. Do you find by the greater weight of the evidence that Soilworks' Durasoil product's synthetic isoalkane is produced from either hydrotreating, hydrocracking or hydroisomerization? _____ Yes ______ No _________________________ Juror 1 _________________________ Juror 2 _________________________ Juror 3 _________________________ Juror 4 _________________________ Juror 5 _________________________ Juror 6 ______________________________ Juror 7 ______________________________ Juror 8 ______________________________ Juror 9 ______________________________ Juror 10 ______________________________ Juror 11 ______________________________ Foreperson Please proceed to Question 4f. 10 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 Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,074,266 4f. Do you find by the greater weight of the evidence that Soilworks' Durasoil product contains isoalkanes or branched iso-paraffins? _____ Yes _____ No _________________________ Juror 1 _________________________ Juror 2 _________________________ Juror 3 _________________________ Juror 4 _________________________ Juror 5 _________________________ Juror 6 ______________________________ Juror 7 ______________________________ Juror 8 ______________________________ Juror 9 ______________________________ Juror 10 ______________________________ Juror 11 ______________________________ Foreperson Please proceed to Question 4g. 11 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 4g. Damages for Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,074,266 Your answers above found Soilworks' Durasoil product infringes at least one claim of Midwest's U.S. Patent No. 7,074,266. You now need to indicate the amount of damages that Midwest is entitled to for Soilworks' infringement of Midwest's Patent No. 7,074,266. Your response below should indicate either lost profits to Midwest in a lump sum or a reasonable royalty, not both. At a minimum, you must determine a reasonable royalty as a percentage of Soilworks' sales of its Durasoil product. Please indicate the amount of damages Midwest is entitled to for Soilworks' infringement of Midwest's U.S. Patent, No. 7,074,266: (i) Lost Profits $_____________ or (ii) Reasonable Royalty _____________% (percentage of Soilworks' Durasoil product sales) _________________________ Juror 1 _________________________ Juror 2 _________________________ Juror 3 _________________________ Juror 4 _________________________ Juror 5 _________________________ Juror 6 Please proceed to Question 4h. 12 ______________________________ Juror 7 ______________________________ Juror 8 ______________________________ Juror 9 ______________________________ Juror 10 ______________________________ Juror 11 ______________________________ Foreperson 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 13 Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 7,081,270 4h. Do you find by a greater weight of the evidence that Durasoil is applied neat to the surface soil? _____ Yes _____ No _________________________ Juror 1 _________________________ Juror 2 _________________________ Juror 3 _________________________ Juror 4 _________________________ Juror 5 _________________________ Juror 6 ______________________________ Juror 7 ______________________________ Juror 8 ______________________________ Juror 9 ______________________________ Juror 10 ______________________________ Juror 11 ______________________________ Foreperson Please proceed to Question 4i. 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 4i. Damages for Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,081,270. Your answers above found Soilworks' Durasoil product infringes at least one claim of Midwest's U.S. Patent No. 7,081,270. You now need to indicate the amount of damages that Midwest is entitled to for Soilworks' infringement of Midwest's Patent No. 7,081,270. Your response below should indicate either lost profits to Midwest in a lump sum or a reasonable royalty, not both. At a minimum, you must determine a reasonable royalty as a percentage of Soilworks' sales of its Durasoil product. Please indicate the amount of damages Midwest is entitled to for Soilworks' infringement of Midwest's U.S. Patent, No. 7,081,270: (i) Lost Profits $_____________ or (ii) Reasonable Royalty _____________% (percentage of Soilworks' Durasoil product sales) _________________________ Juror 1 _________________________ Juror 2 _________________________ Juror 3 _________________________ Juror 4 _________________________ Juror 5 _________________________ Juror 6 Please proceed to Verdict Form #5. 14 ______________________________ Juror 7 ______________________________ Juror 8 ______________________________ Juror 9 ______________________________ Juror 10 ______________________________ Juror 11 ______________________________ Foreperson 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 _________________________ Juror 6 5b. 5a. VERDICT FORM #5 Midwest's Unjust Enrichment Cause of Action Do you find by the greater weight of the evidence that Soilworks was unjustly enriched by its business practices to the detriment of Midwest? _____ Yes _____ No If your answer is "Yes" to 5a, please indicate the amount of Soilworks' unjust enrichment: $_____________ _________________________ Juror 1 _________________________ Juror 2 _________________________ Juror 3 _________________________ Juror 4 _________________________ Juror 5 ______________________________ Juror 7 ______________________________ Juror 8 ______________________________ Juror 9 ______________________________ Juror 10 ______________________________ Juror 11 ______________________________ Foreperson 15 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 Respectfully Submitted, By: /s/ John M. Skeriotis____ Craig A. Marvinney, 0004951 (OH) John M. Skeriotis, 0069263 (OH) Anastasia J. Wade, 0082797 (OH) BROUSE MCDOWELL 388 S. Main Street, Suite 500 Akron, Ohio 44311-4407 Telephone: 330-535-5711 Facsimile: 330-253-8601 Email: cmarvinney@brouse.com, jskeriotis@brouse.com, awade @ b r o u s e . c o m Admitted pro hac vice Donald L. Myles, Jr., 007464 (AZ) JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: 602-263-1700 Facsimile: 602-263-1784 Email: dmyles@jshfirm.com Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc. 16 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 735411 v2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing MIDWEST INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC.'S PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS has been electronically filed on this 9th day of January, 2009. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system. /s/ John M. Skeriotis_____ 17

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?