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

Filing 1283

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 Revised Proposed Special Verdict Form. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/23/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129) kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417) michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 20 APPLE INC., a California corporation, 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiff, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) SAMSUNG‟S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Judge: Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Place: AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and Trial: SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants. 28 Samsung‟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 APPLE‟S UTILITY AND DESIGN PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG 5 1. 6 7 8 9 10 For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”) 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). Do not answer for any cell that has NA (“Not Applicable”).) 11 12 „381 Patent „381 Patent „381 Patent „915 Patent „163 Patent (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 8) (Claim 50) Web Browser Application Samsung Product Gallery Application Contacts Application Web Browser Application Web Browser Application NA NA NA NA NA NA Captivate 13 Continuum 14 Droid Charge 15 Epic 4G Exhibit 4G 16 Fascinate 17 Galaxy Ace 18 19 20 Galaxy Prevail Galaxy S (i9000) Galaxy S II Galaxy S 4G 21 Gem 22 Gravity 23 Indulge 24 Infuse 4G Intercept 25 Mesmerize 26 Nexus S 4G 27 Replenish 28 Transform Apple‟s Proposed Special Verdict Form Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK AvSS: Special Verdict Form (Representative Products)/pa-1542894 v4 2 07/22/2012 04:13 PM 1 2 3 „381 Patent „381 Patent „381 Patent „915 Patent „163 Patent (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 8) (Claim 50) Web Browser Application Samsung Product Gallery Application Contacts Application Web Browser Application Web Browser Application 4 Vibrant 5 Galaxy Tab NA 6 Galaxy Tab 10.1 NA 7 8 2. 9 For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) 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). Do not answer for any cell that has NA (“Not Applicable”).) 10 11 13 14 „381 Patent „381 Patent „381 Patent „915 Patent „163 Patent (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 8) (Claim 50) Web Browser Application Samsung Product 12 Gallery Application Contacts Application Web Browser Application Web Browser Application Galaxy Tab 16 NA Galaxy Tab 10.1 15 NA 17 18 [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]. 19 20 21 22 23 24 3. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), knowing of the „381, „915 or „163 patent, took action that it knew or should have known would induce STA or SEA to infringe the „381, „915 or „163 patent? (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung). Do not answer for any cell that has NA (“Not Applicable”).) 25 26 27 28 Samsung‟s Proposed Special Verdict Form Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 3 1 2 3 4 5 „381 Patent „381 Patent „381 Patent „915 Patent „163 Patent (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 19) (Claim 8) (Claim 50) Web Browser Application Samsung Product Gallery Application Contacts Application Web Browser Application Web Browser Application NA NA NA NA NA NA Captivate Continuum 6 Droid Charge 7 Epic 4G 8 Exhibit 4G 9 Fascinate Galaxy Ace 10 Galaxy Prevail 11 Galaxy S (i9000) 12 Galaxy S II 13 Galaxy S 4G Gem 14 Gravity 15 Indulge 16 Infuse 4G Intercept 17 Mesmerize 18 Nexus S 4G 19 Replenish 20 Transform Vibrant 21 Galaxy Tab NA 22 Galaxy Tab 10.1 NA 23 24 25 26 27 28 Samsung‟s Proposed Special Verdict Form Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 4 1 2 3 4. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that SEA or STA 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). Do not answer for any cell that is gray.) 4 5 Accused Samsung Product 6 Galaxy S 4G (T-Mobile) 7 Vibrant (T-Mobile) 8 Captivate (AT&T) 9 Epic 4G (Sprint) 10 D‟087 Patent D‟889 Patent D‟305 Patent Mesmerize (Verizon) 11 D‟677 Patent Showcase i500 (Boost Mobile) 12 13 Fascinate (Verizon) 14 Galaxy Ace 15 Galaxy S (i9000) 16 Galaxy S II (AT&T) 17 Galaxy S II i9100 18 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) 19 Continuum (AT&T) 20 Gem (U.S. Cellular) 21 Droid Charge (Verizon) 22 Infuse 4G (AT&T) 23 Indulge (Cricket Communications): 24 25 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and 4G LTE) 26 27 28 Samsung‟s Proposed Special Verdict Form Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 5 1 2 3 [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. 4 Do you find that Apple has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that SEC, knowing of any patent you found to be infringed, took action that it knew or should have known would induce STA and/or SEA to infringe that patent? 5 6 Yes _______ (for Apple) 6. 7 8 If in response to Question Nos. 1-5 you found that any Samsung entity has infringed any Apple patent(s), has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Samsung entity actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable Apple patent? 9 Yes _______ (for Apple) 10 No _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Samsung) If yes, please fill in the table below with a “Y” for any entity that you found actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable Apple patent: 11 12 13 Entity 14 „381 Patent „915 Patent „163 Patent STA SEA SEC 15 D‟677 Patent D‟087 Patent D‟889 Patent D‟305 Patent 16 17 7. 18 Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple‟s asserted utility and/or design patent claims are invalid? 19 „381 Patent (Claim 19) Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple) 20 „915 Patent (Claim 8) Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple) 21 „163 Patent (Claim 50) Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple) 22 D‟677 Patent Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple) D‟087 Patent Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple) 25 D‟889 Patent Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple) 26 D‟305 Patent Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple) 23 24 27 28 Samsung‟s Proposed Special Verdict Form Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 6 1 APPLE‟S TRADE DRESS CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG 2 3 8. 4 (In the chart of Question 11, please answer in the “protectable” column with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung)). 5 6 9. 7 9 10. 11 Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple‟s trade dresses are famous? (In the chart of Question 11, please answer in each cell in the “famous” column with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung)). 12 13 14 Has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple‟s registered iPhone-related trade dress is not protectable? (If yes, in the chart of Question 11, please answer for the registered iPhone trade dress row in the protectable column with an “N” for “not protectable” (for Samsung). If no, please answer “Y” for “protectable” (for Apple)). 8 10 Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple‟s unregistered trade dresses are protectable? 11. Please complete the chart below using your responses to Questions 8 – 10. 15 16 17 18 Protectable Famous Unregistered iPhone trade dress Unregistered iPhone 3 trade dress Registered iPad 2 trade dress 19 Unregistered iPad trade dress 20 21 Unregistered iPad 2 trade dress 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Samsung‟s Proposed Special Verdict Form Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 7 1 2 12. 3 For each of the following phones for which you answered yes to both the protectable and famous cells in the chart of Question 11, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung diluted 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 Dilution 6 7 Accused Samsung Product 8 iPhone Trade Dress registered iPhone 3 iPhone Trade Dress Trade Dress Galaxy S 4G (T-Mobile) 9 Vibrant (T-Mobile) 10 Mesmerize (Verizon) 11 Showcase i500 (Boost Mobile) 12 Fascinate (Verizon) 13 Galaxy S (i9000) Galaxy S II (AT&T) 14 Galaxy S II (i9100) 15 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) 16 Infuse 4G (AT&T) 17 18 19 13. (a) If you answered yes to the protectable cells corresponding to Apple‟s iPad trade dresses in the chart of Question 11, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung infringed the indicated Apple trade dress? (Please answer in each cell of column (a) in the table below with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung). 20 21 22 23 (b) If you answered yes to both the protectable and famous cells corresponding to Apple‟s iPad trade dresses in the chart of Question 11, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung diluted the indicated Apple trade dress? (Please answer in each cell of column (b) below with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung). 24 (a) Infringement iPad trade dress 25 26 27 iPad 2 trade dress (b) Dilution iPad trade dress iPad 2 trade dress Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi or 4G LTE) 28 Samsung‟s Proposed Special Verdict Form Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 8 1 14. 2 If you responded “Y” to any of the cells in Questions 12 or 13, which of the Samsung entities do you find liable for Apple‟s trade dress claims? 3 STA Yes _______ No _______ 4 SEA Yes _______ No _______ 5 6 7 [Samsung does not believe that induced infringement is appropriate for Apple’s trade dress claims, but has listed a proposed verdict form question below in the event the Court disagrees]. 15. 8 Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that SEC, knowing of Apple‟s unregistered iPad and/or iPad 2 trade dress, took action that it knew or should have known would induce STA or SEA to infringe the iPad and/or iPad 2 trade dress? 9 10 Yes _______ No _______ 16. 11 If you found STA and/or SEA liable on any Apple trade dress dilution claim, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that it diluted and willfully intended to cause dilution of the trade dress? 12 STA SEA 13 14 17. 15 ____ Yes ____ Yes ____ No ____ No If you found STA and/or SEA liable on any Apple trade dress dilution claim, did Apple prove by a preponderance of the evidence that STA‟s or SEA‟s alleged use of the trade dress in fact injured or harmed the trade dress? 16 STA SEA 17 18 18. 19 20 21 22 ____ No ____ No If you found STA, SEA, and/or SEC liable on Apple‟s trade dress infringement claim, do you find that Apple has proven by a preponderance of the evidence both (a) that STA‟s and/or SEA‟s alleged use of the trade dress is likely to cause confusion among prospective purchasers as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or approval of the accused Samsung product and (b) that there was actual consumer confusion or that STA‟s and/or SEA‟s actions were intentionally deceptive? STA SEA SEC 23 ____ Yes ____ Yes ____ Yes ____ Yes ____ Yes ____ No ____ No ____ No 24 25 26 27 28 19. If you found STA, SEA and/or SEC liable on Apple‟s trade dress infringement claim, do you find by clear and convincing evidence that STA, SEA and/or SEC willfully intended to infringe the trade dress? STA SEA SEC ____ Yes ____ Yes ____ Yes ____ No ____ No ____ No Samsung‟s Proposed Special Verdict Form Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 9 1 DAMAGES TO APPLE FROM SAMSUNG 2 20. 3 What is the total dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung on the claims on which you have ruled in favor of Apple, if any? $____________________________________________. 4 5 21. 6 STA SEA SEC 7 8 9 If you find that Apple is entitled to receive damages from Samsung, which Samsung entities are responsible for those damages? 22. 10 __________ __________ __________ If you find that Apple is entitled to receive damages from Samsung, how is the total amount of damages stated in Question 20 divided? Lost profits Reasonable royalty Samsung‟s profits 11 12 $__________ $__________ $__________ 13 FINDINGS ON SAMSUNG‟S CLAIMS 14 15 SAMSUNG‟S UTILITY PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST APPLE 16 17 18 19 23. For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple infringed the indicated Samsung utility patent claims? (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.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Samsung‟s Proposed Special Verdict Form Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 10 Accused Apple Product „516 Patent Claim 15 Claim 16 „941 Patent Claim 10 Claim 15 „711 Patent „893 Patent „460 Patent Claim 9 Claim 10 Claim 1 iPhone 3G iPhone 3GS iPhone 4 iPad2 3G iPod Touch SAMSUNG‟S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK 11 1 24. 2 If in response to Question No. 23 you found that Apple has infringed any Samsung patent(s), has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple‟s infringement was willful? 3 Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple) 4 5 6 7 8 25. 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) 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) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 „941 Patent Claim 10: Claim 15: „711 Patent Claim 9: „893 Patent Claim 10: „460 Patent Claim 1: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Samsung‟s Proposed Special Verdict Form Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 12 1 2 DAMAGES TO SAMSUNG FROM APPLE 26. 3 What is the dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for Samsung‟s utility patent infringement claims on the „516, and „941 patents? 4 $____________________________________________. 5 6 27. 7 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? 8 $____________________________________________. 9 10 FINDINGS ON APPLE‟S COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG 11 12 13 BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS AND ANTITRUST 28. 14 15 16 Has Apple proven 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) 17 18 29. 19 Has Apple proven 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) 20 21 22 30. If you answered “Yes” to Question No. 28 or Question No. 29, what is the dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung for Samsung‟s antitrust violation and/or breach of contract? 23 $____________________________________________. 24 25 26 27 28 Samsung‟s Proposed Special Verdict Form Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 13 1 2 3 4 PATENT EXHAUSTION 31. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung is barred by patent exhaustion from enforcing the following Samsung patents against Apple? (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 Samsung Patent Exhaustion „516 Patent „941 Patent 10 11 12 13 14 Have the presiding juror sign and date this form. 15 16 Signed:____________________________________ Date:_______________________________ 17 PRESIDING JUROR 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Samsung‟s Proposed Special Verdict Form Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 14

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?