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

Filing 1280

Proposed Form of Verdict by Apple Inc. APPLE'S FIRST REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 7/23/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)
[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]

11
12

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

13
14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SAN JOSE DIVISION

18

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff,
v.

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

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

24
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S FIRST REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV01846-LHK (PSG)
pa-1533697

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

APPLE’S UTILITY AND DESIGN PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG

5

1.

6
7

For each of the following products, has Apple proven that it is more likely than not
that Samsung infringed the indicated Apple utility patent claims?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung). You do not have to provide an answer for any cell that has gray shading.)

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Accused Samsung Product
Intercept
Vibrant
Captivate
Epic 4G
Fascinate
Galaxy Ace
Galaxy S (i9000)
Galaxy S II (AT&T)
Galaxy S II (i9100)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile)
Transform
Mesmerize
Continuum
Galaxy Tab (original or 7.0)
Galaxy S 4G
Gem
Galaxy Prevail
Nexus S 4G
Replenish
Droid Charge
Infuse 4G
Indulge
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and 4G LTE)
Exhibit 4G

’381 Patent
(Claim 19)

’915 Patent
(Claim 8)

’163 Patent
(Claim 50)

x
x

26
27
28
APPLE’S FIRST REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
pa-1533697

1

1
2
3

2.

For each of the following products, has Apple proven that it is more likely than not
that Samsung infringed the indicated Apple design patents?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung). You do not have to provide an answer for any cell that has gray shading.)

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Accused Samsung
Product
Intercept
Vibrant
Captivate
Epic 4G
Fascinate
Galaxy Ace
Galaxy S (i9000)
Galaxy S II (AT&T)
Galaxy S II (i9100)
Galaxy S II (TMobile)
Galaxy SII (Epic 4G
Touch)
Galaxy S II
(Skyrocket)
Galaxy S (Showcase
i500)
Mesmerize
Continuum
Galaxy S 4G
Gem
Droid Charge
Infuse 4G
Indulge

D’677
Patent
x

D’087 Patent
x

D’305
Patent
x

x
x

x
x
x
x

x
x
x

x

x
x
x

x

x
x
x

x
x

x
x

x

x

Accused Samsung Product
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and 4G LTE)

D’889 Patent

24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S FIRST REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
pa-1533697

2

1

3.

2

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

3

’381 Patent (Claim 19)

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

4

’915 Patent (Claim 8)

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

5

’163 Patent (Claim 50)

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

6

D’677 Patent
D’087 Patent

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

D’889 Patent

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

D’305 Patent

7

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

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

8
9
10
11

4.

12
13

If in response to Question No. 1 or Question No. 2 you found that Samsung has
infringed any Apple patent(s), has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that
Samsung’s infringement was willful?
Yes _______ (for Apple)

14

No _______ (for Samsung)

15
16
17

5.

Which of the Samsung entities do you find liable for patent infringement?
Yes _______ No _______

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Yes _______ No _______

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

18

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Yes _______ No _______

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S FIRST REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
pa-1533697

3

1

APPLE’S TRADE DRESS CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG

2

6.

3

Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Apple’s unregistered iPad-related
trade dress is protectable?
Yes _______ (for Apple)

4

No _______ (for Samsung)

5
6

7.

7

Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Apple’s unregistered iPhonerelated trade dresses are protectable?
Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

8
9
10
11

8.

Has Samsung proven that it is more likely than not that Apple’s registered iPhonerelated trade dress is not protectable?
Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S FIRST REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
pa-1533697

4

1
2
3

9.

For each of the following products, has Apple proven that it is more likely than not
that Samsung diluted and/or infringed the indicated Apple trade dress?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)

4
5

Accused Samsung Product

6

iPhone
Trade Dress
Dilution

Vibrant
7

Captivate

8

Epic 4G

9

Fascinate
Galaxy S (i9000)

10

Galaxy S II (AT&T)

11

Galaxy S II (i9100)

12

Galaxy S II (T-Mobile)

13

Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch)
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket)

14

Galaxy S (Showcase i500)

15

Mesmerize

16

Continuum
Galaxy S 4G

17

Galaxy Prevail

18

Galaxy Ace

19

Droid Charge
Infuse 4G

20
21
Accused Samsung Product
22
23

iPad
iPad
Trade Dress Trade Dress
Dilution
Infringement

Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and 4G LTE)

24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S FIRST REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
pa-1533697

5

1

10.

2

Which of the Samsung entities do you find liable for Apple’s trade dress claims?
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Yes _______ No _______

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

3

Yes _______ No _______

Yes _______ No _______

4
5
6
7

DAMAGES TO APPLE FROM SAMSUNG
11.

8

What is the dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung on the
claims on which you have ruled in favor of Apple?

9
$____________________________________________.

10
11
12

FINDINGS ON SAMSUNG’S CLAIMS

13
14

SAMSUNG’S UTILITY PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST APPLE

15

12.

For each of the following products, has Samsung proven that it is more likely than not
that Apple infringed the indicated Samsung utility patent claims?

16
17

(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Samsung), or with an “N” for “no”
(for Apple). You do not have to provide an answer for any cell that contains gray shading.)

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S FIRST REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
pa-1533697

6

’516 Patent

Accused
Apple
Product

’941 Patent

’711
Patent

’604 Patent

Claim 15

Claim 16

Claim 10

Claim 15

iPhone 3G

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Claim 9

Claim 10

Claim 1

x

x

Claim 18

’460
Patent

x

iPhone
3GS

Claim 17

’893
Patent

x

iPhone 4
iPad 3G

x

iPad2 3G
iPod
Touch

x

x

x
x

x

x

APPLE’S FIRST REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
pa-1533697

x

x

x

7

1
2

13.

3

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

4
Claim 15:
Claim 16:

5
6

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

’941 Patent

7

Claim 10:
Claim 15:

8
9

’604 Patent

10

Claim 17:
Claim 18:

11
12

’711 Patent

13

Claim 9:

14

’893 Patent

15

Claim 10:

16
’460 Patent

17

Claim 1:

18

20

If in response to Question No. 12 you found that Apple has infringed any Samsung
patent(s), has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s
infringement was willful?

21

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

19

14.

22
23
24
25
26

DAMAGES TO SAMSUNG FROM APPLE
15.

What is the dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for
Samsung’s utility patent infringement claims on the ’516, ’941, and ’604 patents?

$____________________________________________.

27
28
APPLE’S FIRST REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
pa-1533697

8

1

16.

2
3

What is the dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for
Samsung’s utility patent infringement claims on the ’711, ’893, and ’460 patents?

$____________________________________________.

4
5
FINDINGS ON APPLE’S COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG

6
7
8

BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS AND ANTITRUST
17.

9
10
11

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)

12
13

18.

14
15

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)

16
17
18

19.

If you answered “Yes” to Question No. 17 or Question No. 18, what is the dollar
amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung for Samsung’s antitrust
violation and/or breach of contract?

19
$____________________________________________.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S FIRST REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
pa-1533697

9

1
2

PATENT EXHAUSTION AND EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
20.

3

Has Apple proven that it is more likely than not that Samsung is barred by patent
exhaustion or equitable estoppel from enforcing the following Samsung patents against
Apple?

4
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)

5
6
7
8
9
10

Samsung Patent

Exhaustion

Equitable Estoppel

’516 Patent
’941 Patent
’604 Patent

11
12
WAIVER
13
14
15

21.

Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that Samsung has waived its
rights to enforce the following Samsung patents against Apple?
’516 Patent

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

’941 Patent

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

’604 Patent

Yes _______ (for Apple)

No _______ (for Samsung)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

23
24

Signed:____________________________________ Date:_______________________________

25

PRESIDING JUROR

26
27
28
APPLE’S FIRST REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
pa-1533697

10