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