Verinata Health, Inc. et al v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc et al
Filing
626
VERDICT FORM (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/23/2018)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
VERINATA HEALTH, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
7
8
9
10
Case No.3:12-cv-05501-SI
v.
ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC, et al.,
Defendants.
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
JURY VERDICT
1
2
When answering the following questions and filling out this Verdict Form, please follow
3
the directions provided throughout the form. Your answer to each question must be unanimous.
4
Some of the questions contain legal terms that are defined and explained in detail in the Jury
5
Instructions. Please refer to the Jury Instructions if you are unsure about the meaning or usage of
6
any legal term that appears in the questions below.
We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them
7
8
under the instructions of this court as our verdict in this case.
9
10
FINDINGS ON INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS FOR THE ’794 PATENT
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
A.
Version 1 of Harmony
1.
13
Has Illumina proven that it is more likely than not that Version 1 of Ariosa’s
14
Harmony test infringes any of claims 1, 2, 3, 9, or 13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,955,794 (the “’794
15
patent”)?
For each of the claims below, please check “Yes” (for Illumina) or “No” (for Ariosa).
16
Yes (Illumina)
17
No (Ariosa)
18
a.
Claim 1
____
____
19
b.
Claim 2
____
____
20
c.
Claim 3
____
____
21
d.
Claim 9
____
____
22
e.
Claim 13
____
____
23
24
25
26
B.
Express License
2.
Has Ariosa proven that it is more likely than not that it received an express license
from Illumina for Version 1 of Ariosa’s Harmony test?
Yes ____ (for Ariosa)
No ____ (for Illumina)
27
28
2
1
C.
3.
2
3
Version 2 of Harmony
Has Illumina proven that it is more likely than not that Version 2 of Ariosa’s
Harmony test infringes any of claims 1, 2, 3, 9, or 13 of the ’794 patent?
For each of the claims below, please check “Yes” (for Illumina) or “No” (for Ariosa).
4
Yes (Illumina)
5
No (Ariosa)
6
a.
Claim 1
____
____
7
b.
Claim 2
____
____
8
c.
Claim 3
____
____
9
d.
Claim 9
____
____
10
e.
Claim 13
____
____
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
FINDINGS ON INVALIDITY FOR THE ’794 PATENT
14
15
16
17
18
A.
Anticipation
4.
Has Ariosa proven that it is highly probable that any of claims 1, 2, 3, 9, or 13 of
the ’794 patent were “anticipated”?
For each of the claims below, please check “Yes” (for Ariosa) or “No” (for Illumina).
Yes (Ariosa)
19
No (Illumina)
20
a.
Claim 1
____
____
21
b.
Claim 2
____
____
22
c.
Claim 3
____
____
23
d.
Claim 9
____
____
24
e.
Claim 13
____
____
25
26
27
28
3
1
FINDINGS ON WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT FOR THE ’794 PATENT (IF APPLICABLE)
2
A.
Willful Infringement
3
If there are any claims of the ’794 patent for which you answered “Yes” to question 1 and
4
“No” to question 2 and question 4 or “Yes” to question 3 and “No” to question 4, please answer
5
the following question. Otherwise, proceed to “FINDINGS ON INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS FOR
6
THE ’430 PATENT.”
5.
7
8
Has Illumina proven that it is more likely than not that Ariosa’s infringement was
willful?
Yes ____ (for Illumina)
9
No ____ (for Ariosa)
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
FINDINGS ON INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS FOR THE ’430 PATENT
12
13
14
15
16
A.
Infringement
6.
Has Verinata proven that it is more likely than not that Version 1 of Ariosa’s
Harmony test infringed any of claims 1, 4, or 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,318,430 (the “’430 patent”)?
For each of the claims below, please check “Yes” (for Verinata) or “No” (for Ariosa).
Yes (Verinata)
17
No (Ariosa)
18
a.
Claim 1
____
____
19
b.
Claim 4
____
____
20
c.
Claim 7
____
____
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
FINDINGS ON INVALIDITY FOR THE ’430 PATENT
1
2
A.
Enablement
7.
3
Has Ariosa proven that it is highly probable that the specification of the ’430 patent
4
does not contain a description of the claimed invention that is sufficiently full and clear to enable
5
persons of ordinary skill in the field to make and use the invention for any of claims 1, 4, or 7 of
6
the ’430 patent?
For each of the claims below, please check “Yes” (for Ariosa) or “No” (for Verinata).
7
Yes (Ariosa)
8
No (Verinata)
a.
Claim 1
____
____
10
b.
Claim 4
____
____
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
c.
Claim 7
____
____
12
13
B.
Written Description Requirement
8.
14
Has Ariosa proven that it is highly probable that the specification of the ’430 patent
15
does not contain an adequate written description of the claimed invention for any of claims 1, 4, or
16
7 of the ’430 patent?
For each of the claims below, please check “Yes” (for Ariosa) or “No” (for Verinata).
17
Yes (Ariosa)
18
No (Verinata)
19
a.
Claim 1
____
____
20
b.
Claim 4
____
____
21
c.
Claim 7
____
____
22
23
FINDINGS ON WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT (IF APPLICABLE)
24
25
A.
Willful Infringement
26
If there are any claims of the ’430 patent for which you answered “Yes” to question 6 and
27
“No” to questions 7 and 8, please answer the following question. Otherwise, proceed to
28
“FINDINGS ON PATENT DAMAGES (IF APPLICABLE).”
5
9.
1
2
Has Verinata proven that it is more likely than not that Ariosa’s infringement was
willful?
Yes ____ (for Verinata)
3
No ____ (for Ariosa)
4
FINDINGS ON PATENT DAMAGES (IF APPLICABLE)
5
6
A.
Damages for the ’794 patent (If Applicable)
7
If there are any claims of the ‘794 patent for which you answered “Yes” to question 1 and
8
“No” to questions 2 and question 4 or “Yes” to question 3 and “No” to question 4, please answer
9
the question below. Otherwise, please proceed to the “Damages for the ’430 Patent (If
10
Applicable)” section to determine whether that section is applicable.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Because this case involves two different plaintiffs and two different patents, the answer to
12
the question below should not take into account any of your answers to the questions relating to
13
Verinata or the ’430 patent. You should not include in your response any damages that you believe
14
Verinata or any other entity is entitled to, or any damages that you award below for the ’430
15
patent.
10.
16
17
What damages has Illumina proven that it is more likely than not entitled to as a
result of Ariosa’s infringement of the ’794 patent?
(words)
18
$______________________ (numbers)
19
20
21
B.
Damages for the ’430 Patent (If Applicable)
22
If, for any claims of the ’430 patent, you answered “Yes” to question 6 and “No” to
23
questions 7 and 8, please answer the question below. Otherwise, please proceed to “FINDINGS
24
ON ARIOSA’S COUNTERCLAIMS.”
25
Because this case involves two different plaintiffs and two different patents, the answer to
26
the question below should not take into account any of your answers to the questions relating to
27
Illumina or the ’794 patent. You should not include in your response any damages that you
28
6
1
believe Illumina or any other entity are entitled to, or any damages that you awarded above for the
2
’794 patent.
11.
3
4
What amount has Verinata proven that it is more likely than not entitled to as a
result of Ariosa’s infringement of the ’430 patent?
(words)
5
$______________________ (numbers)
6
7
8
FINDINGS ON ARIOSA’S COUNTERCLAIMS
9
10
A.
12.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Breach of Contract
Has Ariosa proven that it is more likely than not that Illumina breached its
contractual obligations under the 2012 Sale and Supply Agreement?
Yes ____ (for Ariosa)
13
No ____ (for Illumina)
14
15
B.
13.
16
17
Willful or Intentional Injury
Has Ariosa proven that it is more likely than not that Illumina willfully or
intentionally injured Ariosa through its breach of contract?
Yes ____ (for Ariosa)
18
No ____ (for Illumina)
19
20
21
22
C.
Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
14.
Has Ariosa proven that it is more likely than not that Illumina breached the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the 2012 Sale and Supply Agreement?
23
24
Yes ____ (for Ariosa)
25
If you answered “Yes” to question 12 or 14, proceed to question 15. Otherwise, proceed to
26
No ____ (for Illumina)
the end of the verdict form.
27
28
7
FINDINGS ON ARIOSA’S CONTRACT DAMAGES (IF APPLICABLE)
1
15.
2
3
What is the dollar amount that Ariosa is entitled to receive from Illumina’s breach of
contract and/or breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing?
4
(words)
5
$______________________ (numbers)
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
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 Courtroom Deputy 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.
14
15
16
Date:
By:
Presiding Juror
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
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?