Johnstech International Corp. v. JF Technology Berhad et al

Filing 217

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM. Signed by Judge James Donato on 9/14/2016. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOHNSTECH INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 14-cv-02864-JD
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

v.
JF MICROTECHNOLOGY SDN BHD,
Defendant.

12
13

This verdict form is mainly drawn from the parties’ joint submission, with the language and

14

format as they agreed to. The Court made minor edits to improve clarity and ease of completion.

15

The Court edited the format of the “Inducing Infringement” question to match the Model Patent

16

Sample Verdict Form for the Northern District of California because the parties’ proposal was

17

cumbersome and potentially confusing for the jury. The Court resolves the one disputed verdict

18

form, “Obviousness,” in favor of Johnstech’s proposal, which is in accord with the Model Patent

19

Sample Verdict Form for the Northern District of California, Alternative 2. The Court removes

20

the questions for “Written Description” and “Enablement” according to the parties’ joint

21

stipulation. Dkt. No. 213. The parties should file any objections to the attached proposed verdict

22

form by September 20, 2016, at 12:00 p.m.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: September 14, 2016
______________________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

1

VERDICT FORM

2

When answering the following questions and filling out this Verdict Form, please follow the

3

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.

7
8
9
10

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
2

1

We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them under

2

the instructions of this court as our verdict in this case:

3
SECTION I: PATENT INFRINGEMENT

4
5

FINDINGS ON INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS

6

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

7

A. Direct Infringement

8

1.
For each patent claim below, has Johnstech proven that it is more likely than not
that every requirement of any of the below claims of its ’866 patent is included in JF
Microtechnology’s accused product, the Zigma™? (Please check either yes or no.)

9

Claim 1

_______Yes

_______ No

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Claim 2

_______Yes

_______ No

12

Claim 3

_______Yes

_______ No

13

Claim 4

_______Yes

_______ No

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

B. Inducing Infringement

2

Only answer this question if your answer to any claim in Question 1 is “yes.”

3
4
5
6
7

2.
For each claim and product, feature, or service below, has Johnstech proven that it
is more likely than not: that (i) a direct infringer infringed the claim; (ii) that JF Microtechnology
intentionally took action that actually induced that infringement by a direct infringer; (iii) that JF
Microtechnology was aware of the patent; (iv) that JF Microtechnology knew the acts it was
causing would infringe the patent, and (v) that JF Microtechnology did not have a good faith belief
that the patent was invalid?
Please answer Yes (for Johnstech) or No (for JF Microtechnology) for each claim.

8
Claim 1

_______Yes

_______ No

10

Claim 2

_______Yes

_______ No

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Claim 3

_______Yes

_______ No

12

Claim 4

_______Yes

_______ No

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1

C. Willful Infringement

2

Only answer this question if your answer to any claim in Question 1 is “yes.”

3

3.

Has Johnstech proven that it is more likely than not that infringement was willful?

4
5

_______Yes

_______ No

6
7
8
9
10

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
5

FINDINGS ON INVALIDITY DEFENSES

1
2
3
4

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

5
6
7

4.
Has JF Microtechnology proven that it is highly probable that claims 1-4 of the
’866 patent were “anticipated,” or, in other words, not new, because the claimed invention was
already described in another issued U.S. patent or published U.S. patent application that was based
on a patent application filed before the date of April 23, 2003?

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Claim 1

_______Yes

_______ No

Claim 2

_______Yes

_______ No

Claim 3

_______Yes

_______ No

Claim 4

_______Yes

_______ No

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

1

B. Obviousness

2

5.
For each claim listed below, have Defendants proven that it is highly probable that
the claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field as of April 23, 2003?

3
4

Please answer Yes (for JF Microtechnology) or No (for Johnstech):

5

Claim 1

_______Yes

_______ No

6

Claim 2

_______Yes

_______ No

7

Claim 3

_______Yes

_______ No

8

Claim 4

_______Yes

_______ No

9
10

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
7

1
2
3
4
5

FINDINGS ON DAMAGES (IF APPLICABLE)
If you answered “Yes” to Question 1 or Question 2, and you answered “No” as to that
same patent claim in Questions 4, 5, 6, and 7, please answer the following question. Otherwise,
do not answer the following question and continue to check and sign the verdict form below.
6.
What lost profits, if any, did Johnstech show it more likely than not suffered as a
result of sales that it would with reasonable probability have made but for JF Microtechnology’s
infringement?

6

$______________

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

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.

12
13

DATED:

, 2016

By:___________________________
Presiding Juror

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8