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)
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?