HTC Corporation et al v. Technology Properties Limited et al

Filing 650

FINAL VERDICT FORM. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on October 1, 2013. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16

HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, )
INC.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

Case No.: 5:08-cv-00882-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM

Case No.: 5:08-cv-00882-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
(Re: Docket No. 524)

VERDICT FORM

1
2

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

3

provided throughout the form. Your answer to each question must be unanimous. Some of the

4

questions contain legal terms that are defined and explained in detail in the Jury Instructions. Please

5

refer to the Jury Instructions if you are unsure about the meaning or usage of any legal term that

6

appears in the questions below.

7
8

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

9
instructions of this court as our verdict in this case.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

I.

U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (“the ’336 patent”)
A.

13

Infringement
1.

14

Literal Infringement

15

1.

16

infringed any of the following claims of the ’336 patent?

Do you find that TPL has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that HTC has literally

17
18
19

You can only find claims 7 or 9 infringed if you previously found claim 6 infringed. You can only find
claims 14 or 15 infringed if you previously found claim 13 infringed.

20
21
22

Claim
6

23

7

24

9

25

13
14

26

15

Yes (for TPL)

No (for HTC)

□
□
□
□
□
□

□
□
□
□
□
□

27
28
2

Case No.: 5:08-cv-00882-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM

2.

1
2

2.

Inducement

Do you find that TPL has proven by a preponderance of the evidence for each of the claims

3

below that HTC:

4

a.

5

intentionally took an action that actually induced direct infringement of the ’336
patent by a third party;

6

b.
c.

7

was aware of the ’336 patent; and
knew that the actions, if taken, would cause infringement of the ’336 patent?

8
9
You can only find claims 7 or 9 infringed if you previously found claim 6 infringed. You can only find

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

claims 14 or 15 infringed if you previously found claim 13 infringed.

12
13
14

Claim
6
7

15

9

16

13

17

14
15

18

Yes (for TPL)

No (for HTC)

□
□
□
□
□
□

□
□
□
□
□
□

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Case No.: 5:08-cv-00882-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM

1
2
3

II.

Damages

If you have found that HTC has not infringed any claim of the ’336 patent please skip Question 3. Only
answer Question 3 if you have found that HTC has infringed at least one claim of the ’336 patent.

4
5

3.

6

TPL proven that it is entitled to as a reasonable royalty for infringement:

To the extent you have found that at least one claim of the ’336 patent is infringed, what has

7
8

One-time (lump sum) payment of $_______________ for the life of the patent.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

III.

Willfulness

4.

If you have found that HTC has infringed at least one claim of the ’336 patent, has TPL proven

that it is highly probable that HTC’s infringement was willful?

14
15
16

Yes (for TPL)

No (for HTC)

□

□

17
18
19
20

The foreperson must sign and date this verdict form.

21
22
23

Signed: __________________________________________ Date:_________________
Foreperson

24
25
26
27
28
4

Case No.: 5:08-cv-00882-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM