GSI Technology, Inc. v. United Memories, Inc.

Filing 1023

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on November 19, 2015. (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

v.
UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

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

1
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

CONTENTS

1
2

I.

Trade Secret Claims ........................................................................................................... 4
A.

GSI’s Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims: Preliminary Questions ........................ 4

B.

GSI’s Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims Against UMI ........................................ 6

4

C.

UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands ..................................................................... 7

5

D.

UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Ready Ascertainability ........................................................ 7

E.

UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations .......................................................... 8

3

6

F.

GSI’s Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims Against ISSI ......................................... 9

7

G.

ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands ................................................................... 10

8

H.

ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Ready Ascertainability ....................................................... 10

9

I.

ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel .............................................................................. 11

J.

ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation ........................................................................... 12

K.

Misappropriation of Trade Secrets: Damages .................................................................. 12

L.

Contention of Bad Faith Assertion of a Trade Secret Claim ............................................ 14

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

II.

Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claim ............................ 15
A.

GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claim:
Preliminary Question........................................................................................................ 15

B.

GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claim
Against UMI ..................................................................................................................... 15

C.

UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands ................................................................... 16

D.

GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Against ISSI ....... 16

14
15
16
17

E.

ISSI Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands ...................................................................... 17

18

F.

ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel .............................................................................. 18

19

G.

ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation ........................................................................... 19

20

H.

Damages ........................................................................................................................... 19

21

III.

Breach of Contract ........................................................................................................... 21

A.

GSI’s Breach of Contract Claim Against UMI ................................................................ 21

B.

UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands ................................................................... 21

C.

UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Fraudulent Inducement ...................................................... 22

24

D.

UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Waiver ............................................................................... 23

25

E.

UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations ........................................................ 23

F.

UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation .......................................................................... 24

G.

Damages ........................................................................................................................... 24

22
23

26
27
28

2
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

IV.

Fraud................................................................................................................................. 25

A.

3

GSI’s Claim of Fraud against UMI .................................................................................. 25

B.

2

UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands ................................................................... 26

C.

UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Waiver ............................................................................... 26

4

D.

UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations ........................................................ 27

5

E.

Damages ........................................................................................................................... 27

6

V.

False Promise ................................................................................................................... 28

7

A.

GSI’s Claim of False Promise Against UMI .................................................................... 28

8

B.

UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands ................................................................... 29

C.

Damages ........................................................................................................................... 30

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

3
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2
3

I.

Trade Secret Claims

A. GSI’s Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims: Preliminary Questions
1. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI owned the information in any of
the following 25 circuit schematics?

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Yes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

No

chcon
rclk
rclk_match
dmmatch
wclk
rcbufwrc
wbkcom
qcalblk
qcal
qcaladj
qcals
pcalreg
ncalreg
fidec
gclk
yclkmix
r13buf
rbuf
bnkcon
yclkclk
lwrite
pretimer
bab_s80
lread
rcbuf

22
23
24

If you answered “No” for the information in all of the schematics, proceed to section
I.L. If you answered “Yes” for the information in any of the schematics, then answer
the next question.

25
26
27
28

4
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that information in any of the following
25 circuit schematics was a trade secret at the time of the claimed misappropriation?

2
Yes
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

chcon
rclk
rclk_match
dmmatch
wclk
rcbufwrc
wbkcom
qcalblk
qcal
qcaladj
qcals
pcalreg
ncalreg
fidec
gclk
yclkmix
r13buf
rbuf
bnkcon
yclkclk
lwrite
pretimer
bab_s80
lread
rcbuf

If you answered “No” for the information in all of the schematics, proceed to section
I.L. If you answered “Yes” for the information in any of the schematics, then answer
the next question.

23
24
25
26
27
28

No

5
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2

B. GSI’s Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims Against UMI
3. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI improperly used or disclosed the
trade secret information in any of the following 25 circuit schematics?

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Yes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

No

chcon
rclk
rclk_match
dmmatch
wclk
rcbufwrc
wbkcom
qcalblk
qcal
qcaladj
qcals
pcalreg
ncalreg
fidec
gclk
yclkmix
r13buf
rbuf
bnkcon
yclkclk
lwrite
pretimer
bab_s80
lread
rcbuf

21
22
23

If you answered “No” for the information in all of the schematics, proceed to section
I.F. If you answered “Yes” for the information in any of the schematics, then answer
the next question.

24
25
26
27
28

6
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

4. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI’s misappropriation was a
substantial factor in causing GSI to suffer harm?

2
Yes

No

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section I.F.
C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands
5. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that
violated standards of good faith or conscience?
Yes

No

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section I.D.

12
13
14

6. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was directly
related to its claim of misappropriation of trade secrets?
Yes

No

15
16
17
18
19
20

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to Section I.F. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to the next question.
D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Ready Ascertainability
7. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s alleged trade secrets were
readily ascertainable by proper means at the time of the alleged acquisition, use, or
disclosure?

21
Yes

No

22
23
24

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to Section I.F. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to the next question.

25
26
27
28

7
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2

E. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations
8. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the misappropriation occurred on
or before March 8, 2010?

3
4

Yes

No

5
Proceed to the next question.
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

8
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2

F. GSI’s Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims Against ISSI
9. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI improperly acquired or used the
trade secret information in any of the following 25 circuit schematics?

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Yes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

No

chcon
rclk
rclk_match
dmmatch
wclk
rcbufwrc
wbkcom
qcalblk
qcal
qcaladj
qcals
pcalreg
ncalreg
fidec
gclk
yclkmix
r13buf
rbuf
bnkcon
yclkclk
lwrite
pretimer
bab_s80
lread
rcbuf

21
22
23

If you answered “No” for the information in all of the schematics, proceed to section
I.K. If you answered “Yes” for the information in any of the schematics, then answer
the next question.

24
25
26
27
28

9
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

10. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI’s misappropriation was a
substantial factor in causing GSI to suffer harm?

2
Yes

No

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section I.K.
G. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands
11. Did ISSI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that
violated standards of good faith or conscience?
Yes

No

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section I.H.

12
13
14

12. Did ISSI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was directly
related to its claim of misappropriation of trade secrets?
Yes

No

15
16
17
18
19
20

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section I.K. If you answered “No,” proceed to the
next question.
H. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Ready Ascertainability
13. Did ISSI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s alleged trade secrets were
readily ascertainable by proper means at the time of the alleged acquisition, use, or
disclosure?

21
Yes

No

22
23
24

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section I.K. If you answered “No,” proceed to the
next question.

25
26
27
28

10
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4

I. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel
14. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI had knowledge of the facts upon
which it bases its misappropriation of trade secrets claim against ISSI, but failed to
communicate them to ISSI in a timely way?
Yes

No

5
6
7
8

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section I.J.
15. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI intended that its failure to
communicate with ISSI in a timely way would influence ISSI?

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

Yes

No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section I.J.
16. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI was ignorant of the true state of
facts?
Yes

No

16
17
18
19
20

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section I.J.
17. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI relied upon GSI’s conduct to
ISSI’s injury?
Yes

No

21
22
23

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to Section I.K. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to the next question.

24
25
26
27
28

11
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2

J. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation
18. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI could have avoided its losses
through reasonable efforts or expenditures?

3
Yes

4

No

5
6
7
8

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section I.K.
19. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI failed to make such reasonable
efforts or expenditures?

9
Yes

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

No

Proceed to the next question.

12
13
14
15
16
17

K. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets: Damages
20. What was the amount of GSI’s actual loss?
__________
Proceed to the next question.
21. Was UMI unjustly enriched by the misappropriation of GSI’s trade secrets?

18
Yes

No

19
20
21
22
23
24

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to question 23.
22. What was the amount of UMI’s unjust enrichment?
__________
Proceed to the next question.

25
26
27
28

12
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

23. Was ISSI unjustly enriched by the misappropriation of GSI’s trade secrets?
Yes

2

No

3
4
5

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to question 25.
24. What was the amount of ISSI’s unjust enrichment?

6
7
8
9
10

__________
Proceed to the next question.
25. Is GSI entitled to a reasonable royalty because of UMI and/or ISSI’s misappropriation?
Yes

No

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Proceed to the next question.
26. Did UMI act willfully and maliciously when it misappropriated GSI’s trade secrets?
Yes

No

15
16
17

Proceed to the next question.
27. Did ISSI act willfully and maliciously when it misappropriated GSI’s trade secrets?

18
19

Yes

No

20
Proceed to the next question.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4
5
6

L. Contention of Bad Faith Assertion of a Trade Secret Claim
Answer this question if you answered “No” for every schematic in question 1, or if
you answered “No” for every schematic in question 2, or if you answered “No” for
every schematic in question 9, or if you answered “No” to question 10, or if you
answered “Yes” to questions 11 and 12, or if you answered “Yes” to question 13, or if
you answered “Yes” to questions 14, 15, 16, and 17, or if you answered “Yes” to
questions 18 and 19.
28. Did GSI initiate and/or maintain its claim of trade secret misappropriation against ISSI in
bad faith?

7
8

Yes

No

9
Proceed to the next question.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

14
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2

II.

Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claim

A. GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claim: Preliminary
Question

3
4
5

29. Did GSI and Cisco have an economic relationship that probably would have resulted in an
economic benefit to GSI?
Yes

No

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section III.
B. GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claim Against UMI
30. Did UMI know of the economic relationship between GSI and Cisco?
Yes

No

12
13
14
15
16

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section II.D.
31. Did UMI engage in unfair competition?
Yes

No

17
18

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section II.D.

19
20

32. By engaging in this conduct, did UMI intend to disrupt GSI’s relationship with Cisco or
know that disruption of the relationship was certain or substantially certain to occur?

21
Yes

No

22
23
24

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section II.D.

25
26
27
28

15
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2

33. Was the relationship disrupted?
Yes

No

3
4
5

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section II.D.
34. Was UMI’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to GSI?

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Yes

No

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section II.D.
C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands
35. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that
violated standards of good faith or conscience?
Yes

No

14
15
16
17

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section II.D.
36. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was directly
related to its claim of intentional interference with prospective economic relations?

18
19

Yes

No

20
Proceed to the next question.
21
22
23
24

D. GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Against ISSI
37. Did ISSI know of the economic relationship between GSI and Cisco?
Yes

No

25
26

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section II.H, and do not answer question 52.

27
28

16
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2

38. Did ISSI engage in unfair competition?
Yes

No

3
4
5
6
7

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section II.H, and do not answer question 52.
39. By engaging in this conduct, did ISSI intend to disrupt GSI’s relationship with Cisco or
know that disruption of the relationship was certain or substantially certain to occur?
Yes

No

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section II.H, and do not answer question 52.
40. Was the relationship disrupted?
Yes

No

13
14

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section II.H, and do not answer question 52.

15
16
17

41. Was ISSI’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to GSI?
Yes

No

18
19

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section II.H, and do not answer question 52.

20
E. ISSI Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands
21
22

42. Did ISSI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that
violated standards of good faith or conscience?

23
Yes

No

24
25
26

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section II.F.

27
28

17
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

43. Did ISSI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was directly
related to its claim of intentional interference with prospective economic relations?

2
Yes

No

3
4
5
6
7
8

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section II.H, and do not answer question 52. If you
answered “No,” proceed to the next question.
F. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel
44. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI had knowledge of the facts upon
which it bases its claim of intentional interference with prospective economic relations
against ISSI, but failed to communicate them to ISSI in a timely way?

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

Yes

No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section II.G
45. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI intended that its failure to
communicate with ISSI in a timely way would influence ISSI?
Yes

No

16
17

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section II.G

18
19
20

46. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI was ignorant of the true state of
facts?
Yes

No

21
22
23
24

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section II.G.
47. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI relied upon GSI’s conduct to
ISSI’s injury?

25
26

Yes

No

27
28

18
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section II.H, and do not answer question 52. If you
answered “No,” proceed to the next question.
G. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation

3
4

48. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI could have avoided its losses
through reasonable efforts or expenditures?

5

Yes

No

6
7
8
9

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section II.H.
49. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI failed to make such reasonable
efforts or expenditures?

10
Yes

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

No

12
13
14
15

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section II.H, and do not answer question 52. If you
answered “No,” proceed to Section II.H and answer all questions in Section II.H.
H. Damages
50. What are GSI’s damages?

16
17

A. Past economic loss
Lost Profits

19

21

23
24
25
26

TOTAL

$__________

Proceed to the next question.
51. Answer this question if you answered “Yes” to questions 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, and
you answered “No” to question 35 and/or question 36: Did UMI engage in the conduct
with malice, oppression, or fraud?
Yes

No

27
28

$__________

b. Future economic loss

20

22

$__________

Lost Profits

18

19
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2
3

Proceed to the next question.
52. Did ISSI engage in the conduct with malice, oppression, or fraud?
Yes

No

4
5

If your answer to question 51 and/or 52 is “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you
answered “No” to both questions 51 and 52, proceed to Section III.

6
7

53. What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award GSI?

8

______________________________________________.

9

Proceed to the next question.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

20
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4

III.

Breach of Contract

A. GSI’s Breach of Contract Claim Against UMI
54. Did GSI and United Memories enter into a contract?
Yes

No

5
6
7
8
9

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section IV.
55. Did UMI fail to comply with its obligations under the contract?
Yes

No

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section IV.

12
13
14

56. Did UMI’s failure to comply with the terms of the contract cause GSI damage?
Yes

No

15
16
17

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section IV.
B. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

18
19
20

57. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that
violated standards of good faith or conscience?
Yes

No

21
22
23
24

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section III.C.
58. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was directly
related to its claim of breach of contract?

25
26

Yes

No

27
28

21
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section IV. If you answered “No,” proceed to the
next question.
C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Fraudulent Inducement

3
4
5

59. Did UMI prove that GSI concealed or made a false representation about a past or present
fact?
Yes

No

6
7
8
9
10

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section III.D.
60. Did UMI prove that the fact was material?
Yes

No

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section III.D.
61. Did UMI prove that it reasonably relied on the representation?
Yes

No

16
17

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section III.D.

18
62. Did UMI prove that its reasonable reliance caused UMI harm?
19
20

Yes

No

21
22
23
24
25

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section III.D.
63. Did UMI prove that it returned or offered to return to GSI all schematics and property GSI
paid for under the contract, or the money GSI paid to UMI under the contract?
Yes

No

26
27
28

22
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section IV. If you answered “No,” proceed to the
next question.
D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Waiver

3
64. Did UMI prove that GSI knew that UMI had not performed its contractual promise?
4
5

Yes

No

6
7
8
9
10

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section III.E.
65. Did UMI prove that GSI knew that failure of UMI to perform these contractual promises
gave GSI the right to sue UMI for damages?
Yes

No

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section III.E.
66. Did UMI prove that GSI intended to give up this right?
Yes

No

16
17

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section III.E.

18
67. Did UMI prove that GSI voluntarily gave up this right?
19
20

Yes

No

21
22
23

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section IV. If you answered “No,” proceed to the
next question.
E. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations

24
68. Did UMI prove that it breached the contract before March 8, 2009?
25
26

Yes

No

27
28

23
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2
3

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section III.F.
69. Did UMI prove that GSI knew or should have known, with the exercise of reasonable
diligence, of the existence of the breach before March 8, 2009?

4

Yes

No

5
6
7
8
9

If you answered this question “Yes,” then proceed to Section IV. If you answered this
question “No,” then proceed to the next question.
F. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation
70. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI could have avoided its losses
through reasonable efforts or expenditures?

10
Yes

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

No

12
13
14
15

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section III.G.
71. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI failed to make such reasonable
efforts or expenditures?

16
Yes

17
18
19
20
21

No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section IV. If you answered “No,” proceed to the
next question.
G. Damages
72. What are GSI’s damages?

22
23
24

a. General damages

$__________

b. Special damages

$ __________
TOTAL

25
26
27
28

24
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

$__________

1
2
3
4

IV.

Fraud

A. GSI’s Claim of Fraud against UMI
73. Did UMI make a false representation to GSI?
Yes

No

5
6
7
8
9
10

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section V.
74. Did UMI know that the representation was false, or did it make the representation
recklessly and without regard for its truth?
Yes

No

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section V.
75. Did UMI intend that GSI rely on the representation?

15
Yes

No

16
17
18

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section V.

19
20
21

76. Did GSI reasonably rely on the representation?
Yes

No

22
23
24
25
26

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section V.
77. Was GSI’s reliance on UMI’s representation a substantial factor in causing harm to GSI?
Yes

No

27
28

25
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2
3

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section V.
B. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

4
5

78. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that
violated standards of good faith or conscience?

6
Yes

No

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section IV.C.
79. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was directly
related to its claim of fraud?
Yes

No

13
14
15

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section V. If you answered “No,” proceed to
Section IV.C.
C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Waiver

16
17

80. Did UMI prove that GSI knew that UMI’s work on Atris would not be for the benefit of
GSI unless the parties entered into a separate contract for that work?

18
Yes

No

19
20
21
22
23
24

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section IV.D.
81. Did UMI prove that GSI continued to permit United Memories to work on an Atris design
during the course of its 2008 contract for a 576 Mb RLDRAM design, with full knowledge
of that UMI’s work on Atris would not be for the benefit of GSI without a separate
contract for that work, when a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances
would not have done so?

25
Yes

No

26
27
28

26
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section V. If you answered “No,” proceed to the
next question.
D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations

3
4

82. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the false representation occurred
on or before March 8, 2010?

5

Yes

No

6
7
8
9

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section V. If you answered “No,” proceed to the
next question.
E. Damages
83. What are GSI’s damages?

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

a. Past economic loss

12

lost profits

$ __________

13

other past economic loss

$ __________

Total Past Economic Damages:

14
15
16

b. Future economic loss
lost profits

$ __________
TOTAL

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

84. Did UMI engage in the conduct with malice, oppression, or fraud?
Yes _______________

No _______________

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section V.
85. What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award GSI?
______________________________________________.
Proceed to the next question.

26
27
28

$__________

Proceed to the next question.

24
25

$__________

27
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4

V.

False Promise

A. GSI’s Claim of False Promise Against UMI
86. Did UMI make a promise to GSI?
Yes

No

5
6
7
8
9
10

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
this form.
87. Did UMI intend to perform this promise when UMI made it?
Yes

No

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

If you answered “Yes,” then stop here, answer no further questions, and have the
presiding juror sign and date this form. If you answered “No,” then answer the next
question.
88. Did UMI intend that GSI rely on this promise?

15
Yes

No

16
17
18

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
this form.

19
20
21

89. Did GSI reasonably rely on this promise?
Yes

No

22
23
24

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
this form.

25
26
27
28

28
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2

90. Did UMI perform the promised act?
Yes

No

3
4
5
6
7

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
this form.
91. Was GSI’s reliance on UMI’s promise a substantial factor in causing harm to GSI?
Yes

No

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
this form.
B. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

12
13
14

92. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that
violated standards of good faith or conscience?
Yes

No

15
16
17
18

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section V.C
93. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was directly
related to its claim of false promise?

19
20

Yes

No

21
22
23

If you answered “Yes,” then stop here, answer no further questions, and have the
presiding juror sign and date this form. If you answered “No,” then proceed to the
next question.

24
25
26
27
28

29
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

C. Damages

2

94. What are GSI’s damages?

3

a. Past economic loss

4

Lost profits

$ __________

5

Other past economic loss

$ __________

6

Total Past Economic Damages:

$__________

7
b. Future economic loss
8
9

Lost profits

$ __________
TOTAL

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

$__________

Proceed to the next question.
95. Did UMI engage in the conduct with malice, oppression, or fraud?
Yes

No

14
15
16

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” stop
here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this
form.

17
96. What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award GSI?
18
19

______________________________________________.

20
21
22
23
24

Have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

Signed:
________________________________
Presiding Juror

25
26
27
28

Dated: _________________________________
30
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1
2
3

After all verdict forms have been signed, notify the courtroom deputy that you are ready to present
your verdict in the courtroom.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 19, 2015
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

31
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM