Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 1218

Proposed Form of Verdict by Apple Inc. . (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 7/11/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10
11

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN JOSE DIVISION

17

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
APPLE’S PROPOSED SPECIAL
VERDICT FORM

v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Judge:
AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and
Place:
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Trial:
AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,

23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV01846-LHK (PSG)

Hon. Lucy H. Koh
Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
July 30, 2012 at 9 A.M.

1
2

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 APPLE’S CLAIMS

3
4
5

Apple’s Utility Patent Infringement Claims Against Samsung
1.

6

Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Samsung directly infringed
the following Apple utility patent claims?

7

’381 Patent

8

Claim 19:

9

’915 Patent

10

Claim 8:

11

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

’163 Patent

12
Claim 50:

13

15

If you answered “Yes” to Question No. 1, has Apple proven that it is more likely
than not that the Samsung Korean parent entity (SEC) induced its U.S. subsidiaries
(STA and SEA) to directly infringe?

16

Yes _______ (for Apple)

14

17

2.

18

If you answered “Yes” to Question No. 1, has Apple proven by clear and
convincing evidence that Samsung’s infringement was willful?

19

Yes _______ (for Apple)

20
21

3.

No _______ (for Samsung)

4.

No _______ (for Samsung)

Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s asserted
utility patent claims are invalid?

22

’381 Patent

23

Claim 19:

24

’915 Patent

25

Claim 8:

26

Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

’163 Patent

27
Claim 50:

Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

28
APPLE’S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
AvSS Apple's Proposed Special Verdict Form/pa-1533697 v12

1
07/1/2012 02:47 PM

1
2

Apple’s Design Patent Infringement Claims Against Samsung
5.

3

Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Samsung directly infringed
the following Apple design patents?

4

D’305 Patent:

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

5

D’889 Patent:

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

6

D’087 Patent:

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

D’677 Patent:

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

7
8
6.
9
10

Yes _______ (for Apple)

11
12

7.

13

8.

No _______ (for Samsung)

If you answered “Yes” to Question No. 5, has Apple proven by clear and
convincing evidence that Samsung’s infringement was willful?
Yes _______ (for Apple)

14
15

If you answered “Yes” to Question 5, has Apple proven that it is more likely than
not that the Samsung Korean parent entity (SEC) induced its U.S. subsidiaries
(STA and SEA) to directly infringe?

No _______ (for Samsung)

Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s asserted
design patents are invalid?

16
D’305 Patent:

Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

18

D’889 Patent:

Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

19

D’087 Patent:

Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

20

D’677 Patent:

Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

17

21
22

Apple’s Trade Dress Claims Against Samsung
A. Unregistered Trade Dress Dilution Claims

23
24

9.

Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Samsung is liable to Apple for
dilution of Apple’s unregistered iPad-related trade dress?

25

Yes _______ (for Apple)

26

10.

No _______ (for Samsung)

27

Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Samsung is liable to Apple for
dilution of Apple’s unregistered iPhone-related trade dress?

28

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

APPLE’S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
AvSS Apple's Proposed Special Verdict Form/pa-1533697 v12

2
07/1/2012 02:47 PM

1
2

B. Registered Trade Dress Dilution Claims
11.

3

Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Samsung is liable to Apple for
dilution of Apple’s registered iPhone-related trade dress?

4

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

5
6
7

C. Trade Dress Infringement Claim
12.

Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Samsung is liable to Apple for
infringement of its iPad-related trade dress?

8
Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

9
10

Damages for Samsung’s Infringement and/or Dilution

12

What is the dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung for
Apple’s utility patent infringement, design patent infringement, trade dress
dilution, and trade dress infringement claims?

13

$____________________________________________.

11

13.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
AvSS Apple's Proposed Special Verdict Form/pa-1533697 v12

3
07/1/2012 02:47 PM

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

FINDINGS ON SAMSUNG’S CLAIMS
Samsung’s Utility Patent Infringement Claims Against Apple
1. Has Samsung proven that it is more likely than not that Apple has literally infringed the
following claims of Samsung’s patents?
’516 Patent
Claim 15:
Claim 16:

Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

’941 Patent
Claim 10:
Claim 15:

Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

’604 Patent
Claim 17:
Claim 18:

Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)
Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

’711 Patent
Claim 9:

Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

’893 Patent
Claim 10:

Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

’460 Patent
Claim 1:

Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

2. If you answered “Yes” to Question No. 1, has Samsung proven by clear and convincing
evidence that Apple’s infringement was willful?
Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
AvSS Apple's Proposed Special Verdict Form/pa-1533697 v12

4
07/1/2012 02:47 PM

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

3. Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that Samsung’s asserted utility patent
claims are invalid?
’516 Patent
Claim 15:
Claim 16:

Yes _______ (for Apple)
Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)
No _______ (for Samsung)

’941 Patent
Claim 10:
Claim 15:

Yes _______ (for Apple)
Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)
No _______ (for Samsung)

’604 Patent
Claim 17:
Claim 18:

Yes _______ (for Apple)
Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)
No _______ (for Samsung)

’711 Patent
Claim 9:

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

’893 Patent
Claim 10:

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

’460 Patent
Claim 1:

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Damages for Apple’s Infringement

16
17
18

4. What is the dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for Samsung’s
utility patent infringement claims?
$____________________________________________.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

FINDINGS ON APPLE’S COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG
Breach of Contract Claims and Antitrust
5. Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Samsung breached its contractual
obligations by failing to timely disclose its intellectual property rights (“IPR”) during the
creation of the UMTS standard or by failing to license its “declared essential” patents on fair,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms?
Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

26
27
28
APPLE’S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
AvSS Apple's Proposed Special Verdict Form/pa-1533697 v12

5
07/1/2012 02:47 PM

1
2
3

6. Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Samsung has violated Section 2 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing one or more technology markets related to the
UMTS standard?
Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

4
5
6
7

7. If you answered “Yes” to Question No. 5or Question No. 6, what is the dollar amount that
Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung for Samsung’s antitrust violation and/or breach of
contract?
$____________________________________________.

8

Patent Exhaustion

9

8. Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Samsung is barred from enforcing the
’516, ’941, and ’604 patents against Apple based on the doctrine of patent exhaustion?

10
11

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

12

Waiver

13

9. Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that Samsung has waived its rights to
enforce the ’516, ’941, and ’604 patents against Apple?

14
15

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

16

Equitable Estoppel

17

10. Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Samsung is equitably estopped from
enforcing the ’516, ’941, and ’604 patents against Apple?

18
19

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

20
21
22
23

Have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

24
25

Signed:____________________________________ Date:_______________________________

26

PRESIDING JUROR

27
28
APPLE’S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
AvSS Apple's Proposed Special Verdict Form/pa-1533697 v12

6
07/1/2012 02:47 PM