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

Filing 1219

Proposed Form of Verdict by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company) Samsung's Proposed Form of Verdict. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/11/2012)

JURY VERDICT FORM
When answering the following questions and filling out this Verdict Form, please follow
the directions provided throughout the form. Your answer to each question must be unanimous.
Some of the questions contain legal terms that are defined and explained in detail in the Jury
Instructions. Please refer to the Jury Instructions if you are unsure about the meaning or usage of
any legal term that appears in the questions below.
We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions.
APPLE'S '381 PATENT
1. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC ("STA") literally infringes Claim 19 of the '381 patent by
selling any of the following Samsung products having the Gallery, Contacts, Web Browser or
ThinkFree Office applications?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products:
Captivate :
Continuum :
Droid Charge :
Epic 4G :
Exhibit 4G:
Fascinate:
Galaxy Ace:
Galaxy Prevail :
Galaxy S (i9000):
Galaxy S II (pre-August 26, 2011 versions):
Galaxy S 4G :
Galaxy S Showcase (i500):
Gravity :
Indulge :
Infuse 4G :
Intercept :
Mesmerize:
Nexus S:
Nexus S 4G:
Replenish:
Sidekick:
Vibrant:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

Galaxy Tab:
Galaxy Tab 10.1:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

02198.51855/4842758.4

1

2. If you find that none of STA's devices has infringed Claim 19 of the '381 patent, skip this
question. Otherwise, with respect to Claim 19 of the '381 patent, has Apple proved by clear and
convincing evidence that STA actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an
unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
3. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. ("SEA") literally infringes Claim 19 of the '381 patent by selling any of the
following Samsung products having the Gallery, Web Browser or ThinkFree Office
applications?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products:
Galaxy Tab:
Galaxy Tab 10.1:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

4. If you find that none of SEA 's devices has infringed Claim 19 of the '381 patent, skip this
question. Otherwise, with respect to Claim 19 of the '381 patent, has Apple proved by clear and
convincing evidence that SEA actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an
unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
[Samsung does not believe that induced infringement is appropriate for this patent, but has listed
a proposed verdict form question below in the event the Court disagrees].
5. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. ("SEC"), knowing of the ‘381 patent, took action that it knew or should
have known would induce STA or SEA to infringe Claim 19 of the '381 patent by selling any of
the following Samsung products having the Gallery, Contacts, Web Browser or ThinkFree Office
applications?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products:

Captivate :
Continuum :
Droid Charge :
Epic 4G :
Exhibit 4G:
Fascinate:
Galaxy Ace:
Galaxy Prevail :
Galaxy S (i9000):
Galaxy S II (pre-August 26, 2011 versions):
02198.51855/4842758.4

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
2

Galaxy S 4G :
Galaxy S Showcase (i500):
Gravity :
Indulge :
Infuse 4G :
Intercept :
Mesmerize:
Nexus S:
Nexus S 4G:
Replenish:
Sidekick:
Vibrant:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

Galaxy Tab:
Galaxy Tab 10.1:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

6. If you find that none of SEC's actions constitute infringement of Claim 19 of the '381 patent,
skip this question. Otherwise, with respect to Claim 19 of the '381 patent, has Apple proved by
clear and convincing evidence that SEC actually knew or should have known that its actions
constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No

7. Do you find that Samsung has proved by clear and convincing evidence that
the '381 patent is invalid?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," do you find that:
Claim 19 of '381 is anticipated by prior art:
Claim 19 of '381 is obvious in view of the prior art:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

8. If you answered question 1, 3 or 5 "Yes" and question 7 "No" as to any product, did Apple
show by a preponderance of the evidence that it lost profits as a result of sales that it would have
made with reasonable probability but for any Samsung entity's infringement of Claim 19 of the
'381 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, what lost profits did Apple show against:
SEC
SEA
STA

02198.51855/4842758.4

$________________
$________________
$________________

3

For any infringing sales for which Apple has not proved its entitlement to lost profits, what has it
proved it is entitled to as a reasonable royalty against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

9. On what date did Apple provide actual notice of its claim for infringement of the '381 patent
with respect to the Samsung product you found infringed to:
SEC
SEA
STA

________________
________________
________________

APPLE'S '915 PATENT
1. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that STA literally
infringes Claim 8 of the ‘915 patent by selling any of the following Samsung products having the
Web Browser application?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products:
Acclaim :
Captivate:
Continuum:
Droid Charge:
Epic 4G:
Exhibit 4G:
Fascinate:
Galaxy Ace:
Galaxy Prevail:
Galaxy S (i9000):
Galaxy S II (pre-August 26, 2011 versions):
Galaxy S 4G:
Galaxy S Showcase (i500):
Gem:
Gravity:
Indulge:
Infuse 4G:
Intercept:
Mesmerize:
Nexus S:
Nexus S 4G:
Replenish:
02198.51855/4842758.4

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
4

Sidekick:
Transform:
Vibrant:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

Galaxy Tab:
Galaxy Tab 10.1:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

2. If you find that none of STA's devices has infringed Claim 8 of the ‘915 patent, skip this
question. Otherwise, with respect to Claim 8 of the '915 patent, has Apple proved by clear and
convincing evidence that STA actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an
unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
3. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SEA literally
infringes Claim 8 of the '915 patent by selling any of the following Samsung products having the
Web Browser application?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products:
Galaxy Tab:
Galaxy Tab 10.1:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

4. If you find that none of SEA 's devices has infringed Claim 8 of the '915 patent, skip this
question. Otherwise, with respect to Claim 8 of the '915 patent, has Apple proved by clear and
convincing evidence that SEA actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an
unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
[Samsung does not believe that induced infringement is appropriate for this patent, but has listed
a proposed verdict form question below in the event the Court disagrees].
5. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SEC, knowing of
the ‘915 patent, took action that it knew or should have known would induce STA or SEA to
infringe Claim 8 of the '915 patent by selling any of the following Samsung products having the
Web Browser application?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products:

Acclaim :
Captivate:
Continuum:
Droid Charge:
02198.51855/4842758.4

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
5

Epic 4G:
Exhibit 4G:
Fascinate:
Galaxy Ace:
Galaxy Prevail:
Galaxy S (i9000):
Galaxy S II (pre-August 26, 2011 versions):
Galaxy S 4G:
Galaxy S Showcase (i500):
Gem:
Gravity:
Indulge:
Infuse 4G:
Intercept:
Mesmerize:
Nexus S:
Nexus S 4G:
Replenish:
Sidekick:
Transform:
Vibrant:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

Galaxy Tab:
Galaxy Tab 10.1:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

6. If you find that none of SEC's actions constitute infringement of Claim 8 of the ‘915 patent,
skip this question. Otherwise, with respect to Claim 8 of the '915 patent, has Apple proved by
clear and convincing evidence that SEC actually knew or should have known that its actions
constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?

_____ Yes _____ No
7. Do you find that Samsung has proved by clear and convincing evidence that
the '915 patent is invalid?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," do you find that:
Claim 8 of '915 patent is anticipated by prior art:
_____ Yes _____ No
Claim 8 of '915 patent is obvious in view of the prior art: _____ Yes _____ No

8. If you answered question 1, 3 or 5 "Yes" and question 7 "No" as to any product, did Apple
show by a preponderance of the evidence that it lost profits as a result of sales that it would have

02198.51855/4842758.4

6

made with reasonable probability but for any Samsung entity's infringement of Claim 8 of the
'915 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, what lost profits did Apple show against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

For any infringing sales for which Apple has not proved its entitlement to lost profits, what has it
proved it is entitled to as a reasonable royalty against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

9. On what date did Apple provide actual notice of its claim for infringement of the '915 patent
with respect to the Samsung product you found infringed to:
SEC
SEA
STA

________________
________________
________________

APPLE'S '163 PATENT
1. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that STA literally
infringes Claim 50 of the ‘163 patent by selling any of the following Samsung products having
the Web Browser application?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products:
Acclaim:
Captivate:
Continuum:
Droid Charge:
Epic 4G:
Exhibit 4G:
Fascinate:
Galaxy Ace:
Galaxy Prevail:
Galaxy S (i9000):
Galaxy S II (pre-August 26, 2011 versions):
02198.51855/4842758.4

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
7

Galaxy S 4G:
Galaxy S Showcase (i500):
Gem:
Gravity:
Indulge:
Infuse 4G:
Intercept:
Mesmerize:
Nexus S:
Nexus S 4G:
Replenish:
Sidekick:
Transform:
Vibrant:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

Galaxy Tab:
Galaxy Tab 10.1:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

2. If you find that none of STA's devices has infringed Claim 50 of the ‘163 patent, skip this
question. Otherwise, with respect to Claim 50 of the '163 patent, has Apple proved by clear and
convincing evidence that STA actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an
unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
3. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SEA literally
infringes Claim 50 of the '163 patent by selling any of the following Samsung products having
the Web Browser application?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products:
Galaxy Tab:
Galaxy Tab 10.1:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

4. If you find that none of SEA 's devices has infringed Claim 50 of the '163 patent, skip this
question. Otherwise, with respect to Claim 50 of the '163 patent, has Apple proved by clear and
convincing evidence that SEA actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an
unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
[Samsung does not believe that induced infringement is appropriate for this patent, but has listed
a proposed verdict form question below in the event the Court disagrees].
5. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SEC, knowing of
the ‘163 patent, took action that it knew or should have known would induce STA or SEA to
02198.51855/4842758.4

8

infringe Claim 50 of the '163 patent by selling any of the following Samsung products having
the Web Browser application?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products:
Acclaim:
Captivate:
Continuum:
Droid Charge:
Epic 4G:
Exhibit 4G:
Fascinate:
Galaxy Ace:
Galaxy Prevail:
Galaxy S (i9000):
Galaxy S II (pre-August 26, 2011 versions):
Galaxy S 4G:
Galaxy S Showcase (i500):
Gem:
Gravity:
Indulge:
Infuse 4G:
Intercept:
Mesmerize:
Nexus S:
Nexus S 4G:
Replenish:
Sidekick:
Transform:
Vibrant:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

Galaxy Tab:
Galaxy Tab 10.1:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

6. If you find that none of SEC's actions constitute infringement of Claim 50 of the ‘163 patent,
skip this question. Otherwise, with respect to Claim 50 of the '163 patent, has Apple proved by
clear and convincing evidence that SEC actually knew or should have known that its actions
constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
7. Do you find that Samsung has proved by clear and convincing evidence that
the '163 patent is invalid?
_____ Yes _____ No

02198.51855/4842758.4

9

If you answer "Yes," do you find that:
Claim 50 of '163 patent is anticipated by prior art:
_____ Yes _____ No
Claim 50 of '163 patent is obvious in view of the prior art: _____ Yes _____ No

8. If you answered question 1, 3 or 5 "Yes" and question 7 "No" as to any product, did Apple
show by a preponderance of the evidence that it lost profits as a result of sales that it would have
made with reasonable probability but for any Samsung entity's infringement of Claim 50 of the
'163 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, what lost profits did Apple show against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

For any infringing sales for which Apple has not proved its entitlement to lost profits, what has it
proved it is entitled to as a reasonable royalty against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

9. On what date did Apple provide actual notice of its claim for infringement of the '163 patent
with respect to the Samsung product you found infringed to:

SEC
SEA
STA

________________
________________
________________

APPLE'S D‘677 PATENT
1. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that STA sold or
offered for sale in the United States any device that in the eye of the ordinary observer is
substantially the same as the D'677 design such that the resemblance would deceive such an
observer, inducing him to purchase the Samsung phone supposing it to be the design of the
D’677 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products?
02198.51855/4842758.4

10

Fascinate
Galaxy Ace
Galaxy S i9000
Galaxy S 4G
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

2. If you find that none of STA's devices has infringed the D’677 patent, skip this question.
Otherwise, with respect to the D’677 patent, has Apple proved by clear and convincing evidence
that STA actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high
risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
3. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SEA sold or
offered for sale in the United States any device that in the eye of the ordinary observer is
substantially the same as the D'677 design such that the resemblance would deceive such an
observer, inducing him to purchase the Samsung phone supposing it to be the design of the
D’677 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Ace
Galaxy S i9000
Galaxy S 4G
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

4. If you find that none of SEA's devices has infringed the D’677 patent, skip this question.
Otherwise, with respect to the D’677 patent, has Apple proved by clear and convincing evidence
that SEA actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high
risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
[Samsung does not believe that induced infringement is appropriate for this patent, but has listed
a proposed verdict form question below in the event the Court disagrees].
5. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SEC, knowing of
the D’677 patent, took action that it knew or should have known would induce STA or SEA to
infringe the D’677 by selling any of the following Samsung products?
02198.51855/4842758.4

11

_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Ace
Galaxy S i9000
Galaxy S 4G
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

6. Do you find that Samsung has proved by clear and convincing evidence that
the D'677 Patent is invalid?
_____ Yes _____ No
7. If you answered questions 1-5 “No,” or question 6 “Yes,” then move on to the next section. If
you answered any of questions 1-5 “Yes” and question 6 "No,” as to any product, did Apple
show by a preponderance of the evidence that it lost profits as a result of sales that it would have
made with reasonable probability but for any Samsung entity's infringement of the D'677 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, what lost profits did Apple show against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

For those infringing sales for which Apple has not proved its entitlement to lost profits, what has
it proved it is entitled to as a reasonable royalty against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

8. On what date did Apple provide actual notice of its claim for infringement of the D'677 patent
with respect to the Samsung product you found to infringe to:
SEC
SEA
STA

________________
________________
________________

What Samsung profits, if any, did Apple show by a preponderance of the evidence it should be
awarded from sales of products that infringe the D'677 patent and on which you did not award
Apple either lost profits or a reasonable royalty and are attributable to infringement by:

02198.51855/4842758.4

12

SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

[Samsung objects to Apple's attempt to obtain both lost profits and infringer's profits as
unsupported by any legal authority. Samsung offers this question solely in the event that the
Court disagrees].
APPLE'S D‘087 PATENT
1. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that STA sold or
offered for sale in the United States any device that in the eye of the ordinary observer is
substantially the same as the D'087 design such that the resemblance would deceive such an
observer, inducing him to purchase the Samsung phone supposing it to be the design of the
D'087 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Ace
Galaxy S i9000
Galaxy S 4G
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

2. If you find that none of STA's devices has infringed the D'087 patent, skip this question.
Otherwise, with respect to the D'087 patent, has Apple proved by clear and convincing evidence
that STA actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high
risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
3. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SEA sold or
offered for sale in the United States any device that in the eye of the ordinary observer is
substantially the same as the D'087 design such that the resemblance would deceive such an
observer, inducing him to purchase the Samsung phone supposing it to be the design of the
D'087 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Ace
Galaxy S i9000
Galaxy S 4G
02198.51855/4842758.4

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
13

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

4. If you find that none of SEA's devices has infringed the D'087 patent, skip this question.
Otherwise, with respect to the D'087 patent, has Apple proved by clear and convincing evidence
that SEA actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high
risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
[Samsung does not believe that induced infringement is appropriate for this patent, but has listed
a proposed verdict form question below in the event the Court disagrees].
5. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SEC, knowing of
the D'087 patent, took action that it knew or should have known would induce STA or SEA to
infringe the D'087 by selling any of the following Samsung products?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Ace
Galaxy S i9000
Galaxy S 4G
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

6. Invalidity. Do you find that Samsung has proved by clear and convincing evidence that
the D'087 Patent is invalid?
_____ Yes _____ No
7. If you answered questions 1-5 “No,” or question 6 “Yes,” then move on to the next section. If
you answered any of questions 1-5 “Yes” and question 6 "No,” as to any product, did Apple
show by a preponderance of the evidence that it lost profits as a result of sales that it would have
made with reasonable probability but for any Samsung entity's infringement of the D'087
patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, what lost profits did Apple show against:
SEC
SEA
STA

02198.51855/4842758.4

$________________
$________________
$________________

14

For those infringing sales for which Apple has not proved its entitlement to lost profits, what has
it proved it is entitled to as a reasonable royalty against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

8. On what date did Apple provide actual notice of its claim for infringement of the D'087 patent
with respect to the Samsung product you found to infringe to:
SEC
SEA
STA

________________
________________
________________

What Samsung profits, if any, did Apple show by a preponderance of the evidence it should be
awarded from sales of products that infringe the D'087 patent and on which you did not award
Apple either lost profits or a reasonable royalty and are attributable to infringement by:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

[Samsung objects to Apple's attempt to obtain both lost profits and infringer's profits as
unsupported by any legal authority. Samsung offers this question solely in the event that the
Court disagrees].

APPLE'S D‘305 PATENT
1. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that STA sold or
offered for sale in the United States any device that in the eye of the ordinary observer is
substantially the same as the D'305 design such that the resemblance would deceive such an
observer, inducing him to purchase the Samsung phone supposing it to be the design of the
D'305 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Ace
Galaxy S i9000
Galaxy S 4G
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
02198.51855/4842758.4

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
15

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

Vibrant

_____ Yes

_____ No

2. If you find that none of STA's devices has infringed the D'305 patent, skip this question.
Otherwise, with respect to the D'305 patent, has Apple proved by clear and convincing evidence
that STA actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high
risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
3. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SEA sold or
offered for sale in the United States any device that in the eye of the ordinary observer is
substantially the same as the D'305 design such that the resemblance would deceive such an
observer, inducing him to purchase the Samsung phone supposing it to be the design of the
D'305 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Ace
Galaxy S i9000
Galaxy S 4G
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

4. If you find that none of SEA's devices has infringed the D'305 patent, skip this question.
Otherwise, with respect to the D'305 patent, has Apple proved by clear and convincing evidence
that SEA actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high
risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
[Samsung does not believe that induced infringement is appropriate for this patent, but has listed
a proposed verdict form question below in the event the Court disagrees].
5. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SEC, knowing of
the D'305 patent, took action that it knew or should have known would induce STA or SEA to
infringe the D'305 by selling any of the following Samsung products?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Ace
Galaxy S i9000
Galaxy S 4G
02198.51855/4842758.4

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
16

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

6. Invalidity. Do you find that Samsung has proved by clear and convincing evidence that the
D'305 Patent is invalid?
_____ Yes _____ No
7. If you answered questions 1-5 “No,” or question 6 “Yes,” then move on to the next section. If
you answered any of questions 1-5 “Yes” and question 6 "No,” as to any product, did Apple
show by a preponderance of the evidence that it lost profits as a result of sales that it would have
made with reasonable probability but for any Samsung entity's infringement of the D'305
patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, what lost profits did Apple show against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

For those infringing sales for which Apple has not proved its entitlement to lost profits, what has
it proved it is entitled to as a reasonable royalty against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

8. On what date did Apple provide actual notice of its claim for infringement of the D'305 patent
with respect to the Samsung product you found to infringe to:
SEC
SEA
STA

________________
________________
________________

What Samsung profits, if any, did Apple show by a preponderance of the evidence it should be
awarded from sales of products that infringe the D'305 patent and on which you did not award
Apple either lost profits or a reasonable royalty and are attributable to infringement by:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

[Samsung objects to Apple's attempt to obtain both lost profits and infringer's profits as
unsupported by any legal authority. Samsung offers this question solely in the event that the
Court disagrees].
02198.51855/4842758.4

17

APPLE'S D‘889 PATENT
1. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that STA sold or
offered for sale in the United States any device that in the eye of the ordinary observer is
substantially the same as the D’889 design such that the resemblance would deceive such an
observer, inducing him to purchase the Samsung phone supposing it to be the design of the
D’889 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Ace
Galaxy S i9000
Galaxy S 4G
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

2. If you find that none of STA's devices has infringed the D’889 patent, skip this question.
Otherwise, with respect to the D’889 patent, has Apple proved by clear and convincing evidence
that STA actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high
risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
3. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SEA sold or
offered for sale in the United States any device that in the eye of the ordinary observer is
substantially the same as the D’889 design such that the resemblance would deceive such an
observer, inducing him to purchase the Samsung phone supposing it to be the design of the
D’889 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Ace
Galaxy S i9000
Galaxy S 4G
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Vibrant
02198.51855/4842758.4

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
18

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

4. If you find that none of SEA's devices has infringed the D’889 patent, skip this question.
Otherwise, with respect to the D’889 patent, has Apple proved by clear and convincing evidence
that SEA actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high
risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
[Samsung does not believe that induced infringement is appropriate for this patent, but has listed
a proposed verdict form question below in the event the Court disagrees].
5. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SEC, knowing of
the D’889 patent, took action that it knew or should have known would induce STA or SEA to
infringe the D’889 by selling any of the following Samsung products?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Ace
Galaxy S i9000
Galaxy S 4G
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

6. Invalidity. Do you find that Samsung has proved by clear and convincing evidence that
the D’889 Patent is invalid?
_____ Yes _____ No
7. If you answered questions 1-5 “No,” or question 6 “Yes,” skip this question. If you answered
any of questions 1-5 “Yes” and question 6 "No,” as to any product, did Apple show by a
preponderance of the evidence that it lost profits as a result of sales that it would have made with
reasonable probability but for any Samsung entity's infringement of the D'889 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, what lost profits did Apple show against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

For those infringing sales for which Apple has not proved its entitlement to lost profits, what has
it proved it is entitled to as a reasonable royalty against:
SEC
SEA
02198.51855/4842758.4

$________________
$________________
19

STA

$________________

8. On what date did Apple provide actual notice of its claim for infringement of the D'889 patent
with respect to the Samsung product you found to infringe to:
SEC
SEA
STA

________________
________________
________________

What Samsung profits, if any, did Apple show by a preponderance of the evidence it should be
awarded from sales of products that infringe the D'889 patent and on which you did not award
Apple either lost profits or a reasonable royalty and are attributable to infringement by:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

[Samsung objects to Apple's attempt to obtain both lost profits and infringer's profits as
unsupported by any legal authority. Samsung offers this question solely in the event that the
Court disagrees].

APPLE’S UNREGISTERED IPAD TRADE DRESS CLAIM
1. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the unregistered
iPad trade dress was famous before the Galaxy Tab 10.1 or Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE products were
sold to the public?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered question 1 "No," do not answer questions 4-9.
2. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the unregistered
iPad trade dress claimed by Apple is distinctive by having acquired secondary meaning?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered question 2 "No," do not answer questions 4-9.
3. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the unregistered
iPad trade dress is not functional?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If you answered question 3 "No," do not answer questions 4-9.
4. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that STA’s alleged use
of the unregistered iPad trade dress caused a likelihood of dilution?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, which products?
02198.51855/4842758.4

20

The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

5. If you answered “Yes” to Question 4, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that STA
diluted and willfully intended to cause dilution of the iPad trade dress?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

6. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that SEA’s alleged use
of the unregistered iPad trade dress caused a likelihood of dilution?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

7. If you answered “Yes” to Question 6, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that SEA
diluted and willfully intended to cause dilution of the iPad trade dress?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

8. If you answered question 5 or 7 "Yes," as to any product, did Apple show by a
preponderance of the evidence that it lost profits as a result of sales that it would have made with
reasonable probability but for any Samsung entity's dilution of the iPad trade dress?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, what lost profits did Apple show against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

9. What Samsung profits, if any, did Apple show by a preponderance of the evidence it should be
awarded from sales of products that dilute the iPad trade dress and on which you did not award
Apple lost profits and are attributable to dilution by:

02198.51855/4842758.4

21

SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

10. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that STA’s alleged
use of the unregistered iPad trade dress is likely to cause confusion among prospective
purchasers of tablet computers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or approval of Galaxy
Tab 10.1 and/or Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE?
_____
Yes _____ No
If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

11. If you answered “Yes” to Question 10, do you find that Apple has proved by clear and
convincing evidence that STA willfully intended to infringe the unregistered iPad trade dress?
_____ Yes _____ No

If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

12. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that SEA’s alleged
use of the unregistered iPad trade dress is likely to cause confusion among prospective
purchasers of tablet computers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or approval of Galaxy
Tab 10.1 and/or Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

13. If you answered “Yes” to Question 10, do you find that Apple has proved by clear and
convincing evidence that SEA willfully intended to infringe the unregistered iPad trade dress?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

[Samsung does not believe that induced infringement is appropriate for this patent, but has listed
a proposed verdict form question below in the event the Court disagrees].
02198.51855/4842758.4

22

14. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SEC, knowing of
the unregistered iPad trade dress, took action that it knew or should have known would induce
STA or SEA to infringe the unregistered iPad trade dress?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

15. If you answered question 10, 11, 12, 13, or 14 “Yes,” as to any product, did Apple show by
a preponderance of the evidence that it lost profits as a result of sales that it would have made
with reasonable probability but for any Samsung entity's dilution of the iPad trade dress?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, what lost profits did Apple show against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

16. What Samsung profits, if any, did Apple show by a preponderance of the evidence it should
be awarded from sales of products that dilute the iPad trade dress and on which you did not
award Apple lost profits and are attributable to dilution by:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

APPLE’S UNREGISTERED IPAD 2 TRADE DRESS CLAIM
1. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the unregistered
iPad 2 trade dress was famous before the Galaxy Tab 10.1 or Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE products
were sold to the public?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered question 1 "No," skip questions 4-6.
2. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the unregistered
iPad 2 trade dress claimed by Apple is distinctive by having acquired secondary meaning?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered question 2 "No," skip questions 3-9.
02198.51855/4842758.4

23

3. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the unregistered
iPad 2 trade dress is not functional?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered question 3 "No," skip questions 3-9.
4. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that STA’s alleged use
of the unregistered iPad 2 trade dress caused a likelihood of dilution?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

5. If you answered “Yes” to Question 4, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that STA
diluted and willfully intended to cause dilution of the iPad 2 trade dress?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

6. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that SEA’s alleged use
of the unregistered iPad 2 trade dress caused a likelihood of dilution?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

7. If you answered “Yes” to Question 6, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that SEA
diluted and willfully intended to cause dilution of the iPad 2 trade dress?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

8. If you answered question 5 or 7 "Yes," as to any product, did Apple show by a
preponderance of the evidence that it lost profits as a result of sales that it would have made with
reasonable probability but for any Samsung entity's dilution of the iPad 2 trade dress?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, what lost profits did Apple show against:
02198.51855/4842758.4

24

SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

9. What Samsung profits, if any, did Apple show by a preponderance of the evidence it should be
awarded from sales of products that dilute the iPad trade dress and on which you did not award
Apple lost profits and are attributable to dilution by:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

10. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that STA’s alleged
use of the unregistered iPad 2 trade dress is likely to cause confusion among prospective
purchasers of tablet computers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or approval of Galaxy
Tab 10.1 and/or Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE?
_____Yes _____ No
If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

11. If you answered “Yes” to Question 10, do you find that Apple has proved by clear and
convincing evidence that STA willfully intended to infringe the unregistered iPad 2 trade dress?
_____ Yes _____ No

If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

12. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that SEA’s alleged
use of the unregistered iPad 2 trade dress is likely to cause confusion among prospective
purchasers of tablet computers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or approval of Galaxy
Tab 10.1 and/or Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

02198.51855/4842758.4

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

25

13. If you answered “Yes” to Question 10, do you find that Apple has proved by clear and
convincing evidence that SEA willfully intended to infringe the unregistered iPad 2 trade dress?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

[Samsung does not believe that induced infringement is appropriate for this patent, but has listed
a proposed verdict form question below in the event the Court disagrees].
14. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SEC, knowing of
the unregistered iPad 2 trade dress, took action that it knew or should have known would induce
STA or SEA to infringe the unregistered iPad 2 trade dress?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, which products?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Galaxy Tab 10.1

_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No

15. If you answered question 10, 11, 12, 13, or 14 “Yes,” as to any product, did Apple show by
a preponderance of the evidence that it lost profits as a result of sales that it would have made
with reasonable probability but for any Samsung entity's dilution of the iPad 2 trade dress?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, what lost profits did Apple show against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

16. What Samsung profits, if any, did Apple show by a preponderance of the evidence it should
be awarded from sales of products that dilute the iPad 2 trade dress and on which you did not
award Apple lost profits and are attributable to dilution by:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

APPLE’S UNREGISTERED IPHONE TRADE DRESS CLAIM

02198.51855/4842758.4

26

1. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the unregistered
iPhone trade dress was famous before the first Samsung product that Apple alleges used its
claimed trade dress was sold to the public?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered question 1 “No,” do not answer questions 2-9.
2. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the unregistered
iPhone trade dress is distinctive by having acquired secondary meaning?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered question 2 “No,” do not answer questions 3-6.
3. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the unregistered
iPhone trade dress is non-functional?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered question 3 “No,” do not answer questions 4-6.
4. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that STA’s alleged use
of the unregistered iPhone trade dress caused a likelihood of dilution?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Prevail
Galaxy S 4G
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

5. If you answered “Yes” to Question 4, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that STA
diluted and willfully intended to cause dilution of the iPhone trade dress?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Prevail
Galaxy S 4G
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Vibrant

02198.51855/4842758.4

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

27

6. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that SEA’s alleged use
of the unregistered iPhone trade dress caused a likelihood of dilution?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Prevail
Galaxy S 4G
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

7. If you answered “Yes” to Question 6, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that SEA
diluted and willfully intended to cause dilution of the iPhone trade dress?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Prevail
Galaxy S 4G
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

8. If you answered question 5 or 7 "Yes," as to any product, did Apple show by a
preponderance of the evidence that it lost profits as a result of sales that it would have made with
reasonable probability but for any Samsung entity's dilution of the iPhone trade dress?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, what lost profits did Apple show against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

9. What Samsung profits, if any, did Apple show by a preponderance of the evidence it should be
awarded from sales of products that dilute the iPhone trade dress and on which you did not
award Apple lost profits and are attributable to dilution by:
SEC
SEA
STA
02198.51855/4842758.4

$________________
$________________
$________________
28

APPLE’S UNREGISTERED IPHONE 3G TRADE DRESS CLAIM
1. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the unregistered
iPhone 3G trade dress was famous before the first Samsung product that Apple alleges used its
claimed trade dress was sold to the public?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered question 1 “No,” do not answer questions 2-9.
2. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the unregistered
iPhone 3G trade dress is distinctive by having acquired secondary meaning?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered question 2 “No,” do not answer questions 3-6.
3. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the unregistered
iPhone 3G trade dress is non-functional?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered question 3 “No,” do not answer questions 4-6.
4. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that STA’s alleged use
of the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress caused a likelihood of dilution?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Prevail
Galaxy S 4G
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

5. If you answered “Yes” to Question 4, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that STA
diluted and willfully intended to cause dilution of the iPhone 3G trade dress?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Prevail
Galaxy S 4G
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
02198.51855/4842758.4

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
29

Vibrant

_____ Yes

_____ No

6. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that SEA’s alleged use
of the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress caused a likelihood of dilution?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Prevail
Galaxy S 4G
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

7. If you answered “Yes” to Question 6, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that SEA
diluted and willfully intended to cause dilution of the iPhone 3G trade dress?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Prevail
Galaxy S 4G
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

8. If you answered question 5 or 7 "Yes," as to any product, did Apple show by a
preponderance of the evidence that it lost profits as a result of sales that it would have made with
reasonable probability but for any Samsung entity's dilution of the iPhone 3G trade dress?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, what lost profits did Apple show against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

9. What Samsung profits, if any, did Apple show by a preponderance of the evidence it should be
awarded from sales of products that dilute the iPhone 3G trade dress and on which you did not
award Apple lost profits and are attributable to dilution by:
SEC
02198.51855/4842758.4

$________________
30

SEA
STA

$________________
$________________

APPLE’S REGISTRATION NO. 3,470,983 TRADE DRESS CLAIM
1. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the trade dress
claimed by Registration No. 3,470,983 was famous before the first Samsung product that Apple
alleges used its claimed trade dress was sold to the public?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered question 1 “No,” do not answer questions 2-12.
2. Do you find that Samsung has rebutted the presumption that the trade dress claimed by
Registration No. 3,470,983 is distinctive by having acquired secondary meaning?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered question 2 ”No,” do not answer 3 and go to question 4.
3. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the trade dress
claimed by Registration No. 3,470,983 is distinctive by having acquired secondary meaning?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered question 3 “No,” do not answer questions 3-12.
4. Do you find that Samsung has rebutted the presumption that the trade dress claimed by
Registration No. 3,470,983 is not functional?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered question 4 “No,” skip question 5 and go to question 6.
5. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the trade dress
claimed by Registration No. 3,470,983 is not functional?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered question 5 “No,” skip questions 6-9.
6. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that STA’s alleged use
of the trade dress claimed by Registration No. 3,470,983 caused a likelihood of dilution?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Prevail
Galaxy S 4G
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Vibrant
02198.51855/4842758.4

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
31

7. If you answered “Yes” to Question 4, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that STA
diluted and willfully intended to cause dilution of the trade dress claimed by Registration No.
3,470,983?
_____ Yes _____ No

If yes, which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Prevail
Galaxy S 4G
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

8. Do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that SEA’s alleged use
of the trade dress claimed by Registration No. 3,470,983 caused a likelihood of dilution?
_____ Yes
_____ No
If yes, which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Prevail
Galaxy S 4G
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

9. If you answered “Yes” to Question 6, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that SEA
diluted and willfully intended to cause dilution of the trade dress claimed by Registration No.
3,470,983?
_____ Yes _____ No

If yes, which products?
Fascinate
Galaxy Prevail
Galaxy S 4G
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
Infuse 4G
Mesmerize
Vibrant

_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes
_____ Yes

_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No
_____ No

10. If you answered question 7 or 9 "Yes," as to any product, did Apple show by a
preponderance of the evidence that it lost profits as a result of sales that it would have made with
02198.51855/4842758.4

32

reasonable probability but for any Samsung entity's dilution of the trade dress claimed by the
Registration No. 3,470,983?
_____ Yes _____ No
If yes, what lost profits did Apple show against:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

11. What Samsung profits, if any, did Apple show by a preponderance of the evidence it should
be awarded from sales of products that dilute trade dress claimed by the Registration No.
3,470,983 and on which you did not award Apple lost profits and are attributable to dilution by:
SEC
SEA
STA

$________________
$________________
$________________

12. On what date did Samsung have actual notice of Apple's claim for dilution?
____________________

SAMSUNG'S '941 PATENT
1. Do you find that Samsung has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any of Apple's
devices literally infringe Claims 10 or 15 of the '941 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered "Yes," which products:
iPhone 4:
iPad2 3G:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

2. If you find that none of Apple's devices has infringed Samsung's '941 patent, skip this
question. Otherwise, with respect to Claim 10 or 15 of the ‘941 patent, has Samsung proved by
clear and convincing evidence that Apple actually knew or should have known that its actions
constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No

3. Do you find that Apple has proved by clear and convincing evidence that
02198.51855/4842758.4

33

the '941 Patent is invalid?

_____ Yes _____ No

If you answered "Yes," do you find that:
Claim 10 of the '941 patent is anticipated:
Claim 15 of the '941 patent is anticipated:
Claim 10 of the '941 patent is obvious:
Claim 15 of the '941 patent is obvious:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

4. Has Apple proved by a preponderance of evidence that sales of the baseband processor chips
incorporated in Apple's devices exhaust Samsung's rights in the '941 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
5. If you answered question 1 "Yes" and questions 3 and 4 "No," what has Samsung proved it is
entitled to as a reasonable royalty? $________________
6. On what date did Apple have actual notice of Samsung's claim for infringement? __________
SAMSUNG'S '604 PATENT
1. Do you find that Samsung has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
any of Apple's devices infringe Claims 17 or 18 of the '604 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answered "Yes," which products:
iPhone 3G:
iPhone 3GS:
iPhone 4:
iPad 3G:
iPad2 3G :

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

2. If you find that none of Apple's devices has infringed Samsung's '604 patent, skip this
question. Otherwise, with respect to Claim 17 or 18 of the ‘604 patent, has Samsung proved by
clear and convincing evidence that Apple actually knew or should have known that its actions
constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
3. Do you find that Apple has proved by clear and convincing evidence that
the '604 Patent is invalid?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," do you find that:

02198.51855/4842758.4

34

Claim 17 of the '604 patent is anticipated:
Claim 18 of the '604 patent is anticipated:
Claim 17 of the '604 patent is obvious:
Claim 18 of the '604 patent is obvious:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

4. Has Apple proved by a preponderance of evidence that sales of the baseband processor chips
incorporated in Apple's devices exhaust Samsung's rights in the '604 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
5. If you answered question 1 "Yes" and questions 3 and 4 "No," what has Samsung proved it is
entitled to as a reasonable royalty? $________________
6. On what date did Apple have actual notice of Samsung's claim for infringement? __________
SAMSUNG'S '516 PATENT
1. Do you find that Samsung has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
any of Apple's devices infringe Claims 15 or 16 the '516 patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," which products:
iPhone 4 :
iPad2 3G:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

2. If you find that none of Apple's devices has infringed Samsung's '516 patent, skip this
question. Otherwise, with respect to Claim 15 or 16 of the ‘516 patent, has Samsung proved by
clear and convincing evidence that Apple actually knew or should have known that its actions
constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
3. Do you find that Apple has proved by clear and convincing evidence that
the '516 Patent is invalid?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," do you find that:
Claim 15 of the '516 patent is anticipated:
Claim 16 of the '516 patent is anticipated:
Claim 15 of the '516 patent is obvious:
Claim 16 of the '516 patent is obvious:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

4. Has Apple proved by a preponderance of evidence that sales of the baseband processor chips
incorporated in Apple's devices exhaust Samsung's rights in the '516 patent?
02198.51855/4842758.4

35

5. If you answered question 1 "Yes" and questions 3 and 4 "No," what has Samsung proved it is
entitled to as a reasonable royalty: $________________
6. On what date did Apple have actual notice of Samsung's claim for infringement? __________
SAMSUNG'S '711 PATENT
1. Do you find that Samsung has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
any of Apple's devices infringe Claim 9 of the '711 patent ?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," do you find that:
iPhone 3G:
iPhone 3GS:
iPhone 4:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

iPod Touch:

_____ Yes _____ No

2. If you find that none of Apple's devices has infringed Samsung's '711 patent, skip this
question. Otherwise, with respect to Claim 9 of the ‘711 patent, has Samsung proved by clear
and convincing evidence that Apple actually knew or should have known that its actions
constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
3. Do you find that Apple has proved by clear and convincing evidence that the '711 Patent is
invalid?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," do you find that:
Claim 9 of the '711 patent is anticipated:
Claim 9 of the '711 patent is obvious:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

4. If you answered question 1 "Yes" and question 3 "No," what has Samsung proved it is entitled
to as a reasonable royalty: $_______________
SAMSUNG'S '460 PATENT
1. Do you find that Samsung has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any of Apple's
devices infringe claim 1 the '460 Patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," do you find that:
02198.51855/4842758.4

36

iPhone 3G :
iPhone 3GS:
iPhone 4:
iPad 2:
iPod Touch:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

2. Do you find that Samsung has proved that it is more likely than not that consumers directly
infringed the '460 patent, that Apple took action that actually induced direct infringement by
those consumers, and that Apple was aware of the ‘460 patent and knew that the acts it was
causing would be infringing?

_____ Yes _____ No
3. Do you find that Samsung has proved that it is more likely than not that someone directly
infringe the '460 patent, and that Apple offered for sale, sold, or imported; a material component
of the patented design that is not a staple article of commerce capable of substantial noninfringing use; with knowledge that the component was especially made or adapted for use in an
infringing device?
_____ Yes _____ No
4. If you find that none of Apple's devices has infringed Samsung's '460 patent, skip this
question. Otherwise, with respect to Claim 1 of the '460 patent, has Samsung proved by clear
and convincing evidence that Apple actually knew or should have known that its actions
constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
5. Do you find that Apple has proved by clear and convincing evidence that the '460 Patent is
invalid?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," do you find that:
Claim 1 of the '460 patent is anticipated:
Claim 1 of the '460 patent is obvious:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

6. If you answered question 1, 2, or 3 "Yes" and question 5 "No," what has Samsung proved it is
entitled to as a reasonable royalty? $________________
SAMSUNG'S '893 PATENT

02198.51855/4842758.4

37

1. Do you find that Samsung has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any of Apple's
devices infringe Claim 10 of the '893 Patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," do you find that:
iPhone 3GS:
iPhone 4:
iPad 2:
iPod Touch:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

2. If you find that none of Apple's devices has infringed Samsung's '893 patent, skip this
question. Otherwise, with respect to Claim 10 of the '893 patent, has Samsung proved by clear
and convincing evidence that Apple actually knew or should have known that its actions
constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent?
_____ Yes _____ No
3. Do you find that Apple has proved by clear and convincing evidence that the '893 Patent is
invalid?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes," do you find that:
Claim 10 of the '893 patent is anticipated:
Claim 10 of the '893 patent is obvious:

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

4. If you answered question 1 "Yes" and question 3 "No," what has Samsung proved it is entitled
to as a reasonable royalty? $________________

APPLE'S ANTITRUST AND CONTRACT CLAIMS
1. Do you find that Samsung has asserted a standards essential patent?
If you answer "Yes," do you find that:
The '941 patent is a standards essential patent?
The '516 patent is a standards essential patent?
The '604 patent is a standards essential patent?

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

If you answer "No" skip the remaining questions in this section.
2. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of evidence that there exists an alleged
technology market that is a relevant antitrust market?
_____ Yes _____ No
02198.51855/4842758.4

38

3. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of evidence that Samsung possessed
monopoly power in any such market?
_____ Yes _____ No
4. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of evidence that Samsung willfully
acquired or maintained its monopoly power in any such market by engaging in anticompetitive
conduct?
_____ Yes _____ No
5. Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of evidence that Samsung's
anticompetitive conduct was a substantial factor in causing injury to Apple in its business or
property?
_____ Yes _____ No
6. Do you find that Samsung has proved by a preponderance of evidence its defense of a
legitimate business purpose?
_____ Yes _____ No
7. If you answer "Yes" to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and "No" to question 6, do you find that
Apple was in fact injured as a result of Samsung's alleged violation of the antitrust laws?
_____ Yes _____ No
8. Do you find that Samsung has breached an obligation to Apple by not granting Apple an
irrevocable license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions to a
Samsung patent that is essential to the UMTS standard?
_____ Yes _____ No
If you answer "Yes" to question 8, please indicate the patent or patents for which the obligation
was breached:
The '941 patent?
The '516 patent?
The '604 patent?

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

9. If you answered question 8 "Yes," what actual damages, if any, should Apple be awarded?
$____________________
10. Do you find that any of the following Korean Patent Applications is IPR that was subject to
an obligation to be disclosed to ETSI:
Korean Patent Application No. 1998-11380?
Korean Patent Application No. 2004-42300?
Korean Patent Application No. 1999-11179?

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

11. If you answered "Yes" with respect to any Korean Patent Application listed in question 3, do
you find that Samsung breached an obligation to use reasonable endeavors to timely inform ETSI
of that application?
Korean Patent Application No. 1998-11380?
02198.51855/4842758.4

_____ Yes _____ No
39

Korean Patent Application No. 2004-42300?
Korean Patent Application No. 1999-11179?

_____ Yes _____ No
_____ Yes _____ No

12. If there is at least one Korean Patent Application for which the answers to questions 3 and 4
were "Yes," what actual damages, if any, should Apple be awarded?
$____________________

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 Security Guard 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.

Dated: ______________, 2012.

02198.51855/4842758.4

By: ______________________
Presiding Juror

40