France Telecom S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.

Filing 312

VERDICT FORM (wholc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FRANCE TELECOM S.A.,

Case No. 12-cv-04967-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.

VERDICT FORM

9
10

MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR INC.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

When answering the following questions and filling out this Verdict Form, please follow
the directions provided throughout the form. Your answer to each question must be unanimous.
Some of the questions contain legal terms that are defined and explained in detail in the Jury
Instructions. Please refer to the Jury Instructions if you are unsure about the meaning or usage of
any legal term that appears in the questions below.
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.

FINDINGS ON INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS

1
2

(The questions regarding infringement should be answered regardless of your findings with
respect to the validity or invalidity of the patent.)

3
4
5
6

Direct Infringement
1.
Has France Telecom proven that it is more likely than not that Marvell
Semiconductor, while acting within the United States, used a method that includes each and every
requirement of Claim 1 of the ’747 patent?

7
Yes _____(for France Telecom)

No _____ (for Marvell Semiconductor)

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Inducing Infringement
2.
Has France Telecom proven that it is more likely than not: (i) that a third party
infringed claim 1 of the ‘747 patent; (ii) that Marvell Semiconductor took action that actually
induced that infringement by the third party; and (iii) that Marvell Semiconductor was aware of
the patent and believed that its actions would encourage infringement of a valid patent, or
alternatively that it was willfully blind as to whether its actions would encourage infringement of
the patent?

14
15

Yes _____(for France Telecom)

No _____ (for Marvell Semiconductor)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Contributory Infringement
3.
Has France Telecom proven that it is more likely than not: (i) that a third party
infringed claim 1 of the ‘747 patent; (ii) that Marvell Semiconductor supplied an important
component of the infringing part of the accused method; (iii) that the component was not a
common component suitable for non-infringing use; and (iv) that Marvell Semiconductor supplied
the component with knowledge of the ‘747 patent and knowledge that the component was
especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner?
Yes _____(for France Telecom)

No _____ (for Marvell Semiconductor)

23
24
25
26
27
28

Willful Infringement
4.
(a)

Has France Telecom proven that it is highly probable from an objective
point of view that the defenses put forth by Marvell Semiconductor failed to
raise any substantial question with regard to infringement, validity or
enforceability of the patent claim?
2

1
2

Yes _____(for France Telecom)

[If the answer to question 4(a) is “yes,” answer question 4(b). If your answer to question
4(a) is “no,” go to question 5.]

3

(b)

4
5
6

No _____ (for Marvell Semiconductor)

Has France Telecom proven that it is highly probable that Marvell
Semiconductor actually knew, or it was so obvious that Marvell
Semiconductor should have known, that its actions constituted infringement
of a valid and enforceable patent?

Yes _____(for France Telecom)

No _____ (for Marvell Semiconductor)

7
FINDINGS ON INVALIDITY CLAIMS

8
9

(The questions regarding invalidity should be answered regardless of your findings with
respect to infringement.)

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Obviousness
5.
Has Marvell Semiconductor proven that it is highly probable that claim 1 of the
’747 patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
application was filed?

14
Yes _____(for Marvell Semiconductor)

No _____ (for France Telecom)

15
16
17
18
19

Inventorship
6.
Has Marvell Semiconductor proven that it is highly probable that the ‘747 patent
fails to meet the requirement to name all actual inventors of the invention claimed in claim 1?
Yes _____(for Marvell Semiconductor)

No _____ (for France Telecom)

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

FINDINGS ON DAMAGES

1
2
3

If you answered question 1, 2, or 3 “yes” and questions 5 and 6 “no,” proceed to answer
the remaining questions. Otherwise, do not answer the remaining questions. Instead, review and
sign the verdict form.

4
5
6
7
8

Reasonable Royalty
7.
What amount has France Telecom proven that it is more likely than not entitled to
as a reasonable royalty?
(a)

$_______ one-time lump sum payment, or

(b)

$_______ per chip for the following number of accused products: ____________

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

_____________________________________________________________________________
You have now reached the end of the verdict form and should review it to ensure it
accurately reflects your unanimous determinations. The Presiding Juror should then sign and date
the verdict form in the spaces below and notify the Security Guard that you have reached a verdict.
The Presiding Juror should retain possession of the verdict form and bring it when the jury is
brought back into the courtroom.

15
16

Have the presiding juror sign and date this form.
Signed: _________________________
Date: ______________________________

17
18

PRESIDING JUROR
_____________________________________________________________________________

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4