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

Filing 1890

VERDICT FORM. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/21/12. (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
)
a Korean corporation;
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., )
a New York corporation;
)
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
)
AMERICA, LLC,
)
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
)
a Korean corporation;
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., )
a New York corporation;
)
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
)
AMERICA, LLC,
)
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
)
)
Counterclaim-Defendant.
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

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.

28
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

FINDINGS ON APPLE’S CLAIMS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

APPLE’S UTILITY AND DESIGN PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG
1.

For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or
Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 19 of the ’381
Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
Accused Samsung Product

Samsung
Electronics
Co., Ltd.

Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Exhibit 4G (JX 1028)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037)
Gem (JX 1020)
Indulge (JX 1026)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Nexus S 4G (JX 1023)
Replenish (JX 1024)
Vibrant (JX 1010)

23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.

Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

2.

For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or
Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 8 of the ’915 Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
Accused Samsung Product

Samsung
Electronics
Co., Ltd.

Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Exhibit 4G (JX 1028)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037)
Gem (JX 1020)
Indulge (JX 1026)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Intercept (JX 1009)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Nexus S 4G (JX 1023)
Replenish (JX 1024)
Transform (JX 1014)
Vibrant (JX 1010)

23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.

Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC

1
2
3
4

3.

For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or
Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 50 of the ’163
Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Accused Samsung Product

Samsung
Electronics
Co., Ltd.

Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Exhibit 4G (JX 1028)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037)
Gem (JX 1020)
Indulge (JX 1026)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Intercept (JX 1009)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Nexus S 4G (JX 1023)
Replenish (JX 1024)
Transform (JX 1014)
Vibrant (JX 1010)

24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.

Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

4.

For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) took action that it knew or should have known
would induce STA or SEA to infringe the ’381, ’915, or ’163 Patents?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
Accused Samsung Product

‘381 Patent
(Claim 19)

Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Exhibit 4G (JX 1028)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037)
Gem (JX 1020)
Indulge (JX 1026)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Intercept (JX 1009)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Nexus S 4G (JX 1023)
Replenish (JX 1024)
Transform (JX 1014)
Vibrant (JX 1010)

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

‘915 Patent
(Claim 8)

‘163 Patent
(Claim 50)

1

5.

2

For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America
(STA) has infringed the D’677 Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)

3
4

Accused Samsung Product

5
6

Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
Galaxy S Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Vibrant (JX 1010)

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Samsung
Samsung
Electronics Co., Telecommunica
Ltd.
tions America,
LLC

6.

For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America
(STA) has infringed the D’087 Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
Samsung
Samsung
Electronics Co., Telecommunica
Ltd.
tions America,
LLC

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Accused Samsung Product
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Vibrant (JX 1010)

28
6
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

1

7.

2

For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America
(STA) has infringed the D’305 Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)

3
4
5

Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC

Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
Gem (JX 1020)
Indulge (JX 1026)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Vibrant (JX 1010)

6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Samsung
Electronics Co.,
Ltd.

Accused Samsung Product

11
12
13
14
15

17

For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or
Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’889 Patent?

18

(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)

16

8.

19
20
21
22
23

Accused Samsung Product

Samsung
Electronics
Co., Ltd.

Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE)
(JX 1038)

24
25
26
27
28
7
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.

Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC

1

If you did not answer “Yes” to any of Questions 1 through 8, please skip to Question 11, and do
not answer Questions 9 and 10.

2

9.

3
4
5
6

If you found that Samsung Electronics America (SEA) or Samsung Telecommunications
America (STA) infringed in any of Questions 1 through 8, has Apple proven by a
preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) took action that it
knew or should have known would induce SEA or STA to infringe the D’677, D’087,
D’305, and/or D’889 Patents?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)

7

Accused Samsung Product

8

D’087 Patent

Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T)
(JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile)
(JX 1033)
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch)
(JX 1034)
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket)
(JX 1035)
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
(JX 1017)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi)
(JX 1037)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE)
(JX 1038)
Gem (JX 1020)
Indulge (JX 1026)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Vibrant (JX 1010)

9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

D’677 Patent

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

D’305 Patent

D’889
Patent

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

10. If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions 1 through 9, and thus found that any
Samsung entity has infringed any Apple patent(s), has Apple proven by clear and
convincing evidence that the Samsung entity’s infringement was willful?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)
Apple Utility and Design
Patents

Samsung
Electronics
Co., Ltd.

Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.

Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC

’381 Patent (Claim 19)
’915 Patent (Claim 8)
’163 Patent (Claim 50)
D’677 Patent
D’087 Patent
D’305 Patent
D’889 Patent

11
12
13

11. Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s asserted utility
and/or design patent claims are invalid?
’381 Patent (Claim 19)

Yes ______ (for Samsung)

No ______ (for Apple)

’915 Patent (Claim 8)

Yes ______ (for Samsung)

No ______ (for Apple)

’163 Patent (Claim 50)

Yes ______ (for Samsung)

No ______ (for Apple)

D’677 Patent

Yes ______ (for Samsung)

No ______ (for Apple)

D’087 Patent

Yes ______ (for Samsung)

No ______ (for Apple)

D’305 Patent

Yes ______ (for Samsung)

No ______ (for Apple)

D’889 Patent

Yes ______ (for Samsung)

No ______ (for Apple)

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4

APPLE’S TRADE DRESS CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG
Protectability
12. Has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s registered iPhone
trade dress ’983 is not protectable?
Yes (not protectable – for Samsung) _____

No (protectable – for Apple) _________

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

13. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s unregistered trade
dresses are protectable?
(Please answer with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung).)
Apple Trade Dresses
Unregistered iPhone 3G Trade Dress
Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress
Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress

Protectable

11
12
13

Trade Dress Dilution

14

14. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s trade dresses are
famous?

15

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

16
17
18
19

Apple Trade Dresses
Registered iPhone Trade Dress
Unregistered iPhone 3G Trade Dress
Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress
Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

Famous

1
2
3
4
5

If you did not find the registered iPhone trade dress protectable and famous, please skip to
Question 16, and do not answer Question 15.
15. If you found the registered iPhone trade dress protectable and famous, for each of the
following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung
Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted
the registered iPhone trade dress?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Samsung
Samsung
Electronics Co., Telecommunica
Ltd.
tions America,
LLC

Accused Samsung Product
Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
Galaxy S II Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Vibrant (JX 1010)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4
5

If you did not find the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress protectable and famous, please skip to
Question 17, and do not answer Question 16.
16. If you found the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress protectable and famous, for each of
the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA)
has diluted the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Samsung
Samsung
Electronics Co., Telecommunica
Ltd.
tions America,
LLC

Accused Samsung Product
Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
Galaxy S II Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Vibrant (JX 1010)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4
5

If you did not find the unregistered Combination iPhone trade dress protectable and famous,
please skip to Question 18, and do not answer Question 17.
17. If you found the unregistered Combination iPhone trade dress protectable and famous,
for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America
(STA) has diluted the unregistered Combination iPhone trade dress?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Samsung
Samsung
Electronics Co., Telecommunica
Ltd.
tions America,
LLC

Accused Samsung Product
Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
Galaxy S II Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Vibrant (JX 1010)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

If you did not find the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable and famous, please skip
to Question 19, and do not answer Question 18.
18. If you found the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable and famous, for each
of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung
Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade
dress?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)
Accused Samsung
Product

Samsung
Electronics Co.,
Ltd.

Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.

Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC

Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi)
(JX 1037)
Galaxy Tab 10.1
(4G LTE) (JX 1038)

11
12

If you did not answer “Yes” to any of Questions 15 through 18, please skip to Question 20, and
do not answer Question 19.

13
14

19. If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions 15 through 18, and thus found that any
Samsung entity has diluted any Apple trade dress(es), has Apple proven by a
preponderance of the evidence that the Samsung entity’s dilution was willful?

15
16

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

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Asserted Trade Dress

Samsung
Electronics Co.,
Ltd.

Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.

Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC

Registered iPhone Trade
Dress
Unregistered iPhone 3
Trade Dress
Unregistered Combination
iPhone Trade Dress
Unregistered iPad/iPad 2
Trade Dress

24
25
26
27
28

Trade Dress Infringement
If you did not find the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable, please skip to Question
22, and do not answer Questions 20 and 21.
20. If you found the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable, for each of the
following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung
14
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

1
2
3

Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung
Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade
dress?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)

4
5
6
7

Asserted Trade Dress

Samsung
Electronics Co.,
Ltd.

Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.

Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC

Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi)
(JX 1037)
Galaxy Tab 10.1
(4G LTE) (JX 1038)

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

If you did not answer “Yes” to any of Question 20, please skip to Question 22, and do not answer
Question 21.
21. If you answered “Yes” to any of Question 20, and thus found that any Samsung entity
has infringed Apple’s unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress, has Apple proven by a
preponderance of the evidence that the Samsung entity’s infringement was willful?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)

14
15

Asserted Trade Dress

16

Samsung
Electronics Co.,
Ltd.

Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.

Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC

Unregistered iPad/iPad 2
Trade Dress

17
18

DAMAGES TO APPLE FROM SAMSUNG (IF APPLICABLE)

19
20
21

22. 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?
$______________________________________.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

23. For the total dollar amount in your answer to Question 22, please provide the dollar
breakdown by product.
Accused Samsung Product
Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Exhibit 4G (JX 1028)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)

12

Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)

13

Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)

11

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Galaxy S Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE) (JX 1038)
Gem (JX 1020)
Indulge (JX 1026)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Intercept (JX 1009)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Nexus S 4G (JX 1023)
Replenish (JX 1024)
Transform (JX 1014)
Vibrant (JX 1010)

23
24
25
26
27
28
16
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

Amount

7

Claim 1
Doctrine of
Equivalents

6

Claim 1
Literal
Infringement

5

8
9

13
14
15

‘711
Patent

12

‘893
Patent

11

18
19

Claim
15
Claim
10

17

‘941 Patent

16

26
27
28

17
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

iPod Touch
4th Gen. (JX
1057 and
JX 1077)

25

iPhone 3GS
(JX 1054
and JX
1076)
iPhone 4
(JX1055
and JX
1056)
iPad 2 3G
(JX 1050
and JX
1051)

24

iPhone 3G
(JX 1053)

23

Claim
15

22

Accused
Apple
Product

21

Claim
16

20
‘516 Patent

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Claim
10

4

(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Samsung), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Apple). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)

Claim 9

3

24. For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that Apple has infringed the indicated Samsung utility patent claims?

’460 Patent

2

SAMSUNG’S UTILITY PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST APPLE

‘460 Patent

1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

25. If in response to Question 24 you found that Apple has infringed any Samsung patent(s),
has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s infringement was
willful?
’516 Patent
Claim 15:
Claim 16:

Yes ______ (for Samsung)
Yes ______ (for Samsung)

No ______ (for Apple)
No ______ (for Apple)

’941 Patent
Claim 10:
Claim 15:

Yes ______ (for Samsung)
Yes ______ (for Samsung)

No ______ (for Apple)
No ______ (for Apple)

’711 Patent
Claim 9:

Yes ______ (for Samsung)

No ______ (for Apple)

’893 Patent
Claim 10:

Yes ______ (for Samsung)

No ______ (for Apple)

’460 Patent
Claim 1:

Yes ______ (for Samsung)

No ______ (for Apple)

12
13

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

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

’516 Patent
Claim 15:
Claim 16:

Yes ______ (for Apple)
Yes ______ (for Apple)

No ______ (for Samsung)
No ______ (for Samsung)

’941 Patent
Claim 10:
Claim 15:

Yes ______ (for Apple)
Yes ______ (for Apple)

No ______ (for Samsung)
No ______ (for Samsung)

’711 Patent
Claim 9:

Yes ______ (for Apple)

No ______ (for Samsung)

’893 Patent
Claim 10:

Yes ______ (for Apple)

No ______ (for Samsung)

’460 Patent
Claim 1:

Yes ______ (for Apple)

No ______ (for Samsung)

24
25
26
27
28
18
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

1
2
3

DAMAGES TO SAMSUNG FROM APPLE (IF APPLICABLE)
27. What is the total 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

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

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

$______________________________________.
29. For the total dollar amounts in your answers to Questions 27 and 28, please provide the
breakdown by product.
Accused Samsung Product
iPhone 3G (JX 1053)
iPhone 3GS (JX 1054 and JX 1076)
iPhone 4 (JX1055 and JX 1056)
iPad 2 3G (JX 1050 and JX 1051)
iPod Touch 4th Gen. (JX 1057 and JX 1077)

Amount

14
15

BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS AND ANTITRUST

16

30. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence 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?

17
18
19
20
21

Yes ______ (for Apple)

No ______ (for Samsung)

31. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung has violated Section
2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing one or more technology markets related
to the UMTS standard?

22
Yes ______ (for Apple)

No ______ (for Samsung)

23
24
25
26

32. If you answered “Yes” to Question 30 or Question 31, what is the dollar amount that
Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung for Samsung’s antitrust violation and/or
breach of contract?
$______________________________________.

27
28
19
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4

PATENT EXHAUSTION
33. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung is barred by patent
exhaustion from enforcing the following Samsung patents against Apple?
’516 Patent

Yes ______ (for Apple)

No ______ (for Samsung)

’941 Patent

Yes ______ (for Apple)

No ______ (for Samsung)

5
6
7

Have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

8
9

Signed:_____________________________________ Date:_______________________________
PRESIDING JUROR

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM