Funai Electric Company, Ltd. v. Daewoo Electronics Corporation et al

Filing 620

Court's Proposed Special Verdict Form. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on February 1, 2008. (jcslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2008)

Download PDF
Funai Electric Company, Ltd. v. Daewoo Electronics Corporation et al Doc. 620 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. DAEWOO ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendant(s). ___________________________________/ FUNAI ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiff(s), No. C-04-01830 JCS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COURT'S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM DATED: February 1, 2008 ___________________________ JOSEPH C. SPERO United States Magistrate Judge Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 4 2. JURY VERDICT We, the jury, unanimously find as follows: I. INFRINGEMENT 1. Has Funai proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Daewoo's sales of T-Mecha VCRs infringe the following claims of the `018 patent under the doctrine of equivalents? YES (for Funai) ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ NO (for Daewoo) ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Has Funai proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Daewoo's sales of T- Mecha VCRs infringe the following claims of the `210 patent under the doctrine of equivalents? YES (for Funai) Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 6 Claim 7 Claim 9 Claim 10 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ NO (for Daewoo) ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3. Has Funai proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Daewoo's sales of VCR products containing the accused erasing circuitry infringe the following claims of the `538 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents? YES (for Funai) Claim 1 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 5 II. INVALIDITY 4. Has Daewoo proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following claims of ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ NO (for Daewoo) ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the `210 patent are invalid due to obviousness? YES (for Funai) Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 6 Claim 7 Claim 9 Claim 10 ___________ ___________ ___________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ NO (for Daewoo) ___________ ___________ ___________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5. Has Daewoo proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following claims of the `538 patent are invalid due to the obviousness? YES (for Daewoo) Claim 1 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 5 __________ NO (for Funai) __________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. III. If you answered "YES" to any of the questions in Section I, above, and if you answered "NO" to each of the questions in Section II with regard to any of the same claim or claims on which you answered YES in Section I, above, then complete the questions in Sections III and IV, below. DAMAGES SECTION 6. What sum of money would fairly and adequately compensate Funai for DEC's infringement of the patent(s), if any, as to which you found any claim(s) to be infringed and not invalid? $__________________________. Of the amount, if any, which you awarded in No. 7, what sum of money would fairly and adequately compensate Funai for DEAM's infringement of the patent(s), if any, as to which you found any claim(s) to be infringed and not invalid? $_________________________. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IV. WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT 8. Has Funai proven by clear and convincing evidence that DEC willfully infringed the `018 patent? YES (for Funai) ___________ NO (for Daewoo) ___________ 9. `210 patent? Has Funai proven by clear and convincing evidence that DEC willfully infringed the United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. 10. `538 patent? YES (for Funai) ___________ NO (for Daewoo) ___________ Has Funai proven by clear and convincing evidence that DEC willfully infringed the YES (for Funai) ___________ NO (for Daewoo) ___________ Has Funai proven by clear and convincing evidence that DEAM willfully infringed the `018 patent? YES (for Funai) ___________ NO (for Daewoo) ___________ 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12. Has Funai proven by clear and convincing evidence that DEAM willfully infringed the `210 patent? YES (for Funai) ___________ 13. NO (for Daewoo) ___________ Has Funai proven by clear and convincing evidence that DEAM willfully infringed the `538 patent? YES (for Funai) ___________ NO (for Daewoo) ___________ United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 After this Verdict Form has been signed and dated, please submit a Jury Note to the Court Security Officer notifying the Court that the Jury has reached a verdict. Please return the Verdict Form to the Courtroom Deputy. SIGN AND DATE THE SPECIAL VERDICT FORM Signed:____________________________________________________________ Foreperson of the Jury:_______________________________________________ Dated:__________________

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?