GSI Technology, Inc. v. United Memories, Inc.
Filing
1044
JURY VERDICT FORM. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on November 22, 2015. (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2015)
<![CDATA[
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
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
JURY VERDICT FORM
Table of Contents
1
2
I.
Trade Secret Claims ................................................................................................................... 4
A.
GSI’s Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims: Preliminary Questions ........................ 4
3
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: Estoppel ............................................................................... 8
F.
UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations .......................................................... 8
7
G.
GSI’s Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims Against ISSI ....................................... 10
8
H.
ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands ................................................................... 11
I.
ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Ready Ascertainability ....................................................... 11
J.
ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel .............................................................................. 12
K.
ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation ........................................................................... 12
11
L.
Misappropriation of Trade Secrets: Damages .................................................................. 13
12
M.
Contention of Bad Faith Assertion of a Trade Secret Claim ............................................ 14
6
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
13
II. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claim .................................... 15
14
A.
GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claim:
Preliminary Question........................................................................................................ 15
15
B.
GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claim
Against UMI ..................................................................................................................... 15
C.
UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands ................................................................... 16
D.
UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel ............................................................................. 17
18
E.
Damages as to UMI .......................................................................................................... 18
19
F.
GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Against ISSI ....... 18
G.
ISSI Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands ...................................................................... 19
16
17
20
H.
ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel .............................................................................. 20
21
I.
ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation ........................................................................... 21
22
J.
Damages as to ISSI .......................................................................................................... 21
23
III. Breach of Contract ................................................................................................................... 23
24
A.
GSI’s Breach of Contract Claim Against UMI ................................................................ 23
25
B.
UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands ................................................................... 23
C.
UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel ............................................................................. 24
D.
UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Waiver ............................................................................... 25
26
27
28
UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations ........................................................ 25
2
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
E.
1
F.
UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation .......................................................................... 26
G.
Damages ........................................................................................................................... 26
2
3
IV. Fraud ........................................................................................................................................ 27
A.
GSI’s Claim of Fraud against UMI .................................................................................. 27
4
B.
UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands ................................................................... 28
5
C.
UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel ............................................................................. 28
6
D.
UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Waiver ............................................................................... 29
E.
UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations ........................................................ 29
F.
Damages ........................................................................................................................... 30
7
8
V. False Promise ........................................................................................................................... 31
9
GSI’s Claim of False Promise Against UMI .................................................................... 31
10
B.
UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands ................................................................... 32
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
A.
C.
UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel ............................................................................. 33
D.
Damages ........................................................................................................................... 34
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
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.M. 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
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
2
2. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the information in any of the
following 25 circuit schematics was a trade secret at the time of the claimed
misappropriation?
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
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
If you answered “No” for the information in all of the schematics, proceed to section
I.M. If you answered “Yes” for the information in any of the schematics, then answer
the next question.
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
5
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
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.M. 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
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
If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section I.M.
C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands
5. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that
was unconscionable?
9
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 against UMI and resulted in
prejudice to UMI?
15
Yes
No
16
17
18
19
20
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
Proceed to the next question.
24
25
26
27
28
7
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
E. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel
8. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI made a representation of fact
relating to its misappropriation of trade secrets claim intending that UMI rely on it, or
remained silent where GSI had a duty to speak and the circumstances required it to speak?
4
Yes
No
5
6
7
8
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section I.F.
9. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI knew the true state of the facts?
9
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.F.
12
13
10. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI was ignorant of the true state of
the facts?
14
Yes
No
15
16
17
18
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section I.F.
11. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI reasonably relied upon GSI’s
conduct to UMI’s injury?
19
Yes
20
No
21
22
23
24
Proceed to the next question.
F. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations
12. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the misappropriation occurred on
or before March 8, 2010?
25
Yes
26
No
27
28
8
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section I.G.
13. Did UMI prove that GSI knew or should have known, with the exercise of reasonable
diligence, of the existence of the misappropriation on or before March 8, 2010?
4
Yes
No
5
6
Proceed to the next question.
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
9
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
2
G. GSI’s Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims Against ISSI
14. 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.L. If you answered “Yes” for the information in any of the schematics, then answer
the next question.
24
25
26
27
28
10
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
15. 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
If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section I.L.
H. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands
16. Did ISSI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that
was unconscionable?
9
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.I.
12
13
14
17. Did ISSI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was directly
related to its claim of misappropriation of trade secrets against ISSI and resulted in
prejudice to ISSI?
15
Yes
No
16
17
18
19
20
Proceed to the next question.
I. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Ready Ascertainability
18. 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
Proceed to the next question.
24
25
26
27
28
11
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
J. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel
19. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI made a representation of fact
relating to its misappropriation of trade secrets claim intending that ISSI rely on it, or
remained silent where GSI had a duty to speak and the circumstances required it to speak?
4
Yes
No
5
6
7
8
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section I.K.
20. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI knew the true state of the facts?
9
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.K.
12
13
21. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI was ignorant of the true state of
the facts?
14
Yes
No
15
16
17
18
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section I.K.
22. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI reasonably relied upon GSI’s
conduct to ISSI’s injury?
19
Yes
20
No
21
22
23
24
Proceed to the next question.
K. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation
23. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI could have avoided its losses
through reasonable efforts or expenditures?
25
Yes
26
No
27
28
12
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section I.L.
24. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI failed to make such reasonable
efforts or expenditures?
4
Yes
5
No
6
7
8
9
Proceed to the next question.
L. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets: Damages
25. What was the amount of GSI’s general damages?
$__________
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Proceed to the next question.
12
26. Was ISSI unjustly enriched by the misappropriation of GSI’s trade secrets?
13
Yes
14
15
16
17
18
No
If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to question 28.
27. What was the amount of ISSI’s unjust enrichment?
$__________
19
Proceed to the next question.
20
21
28. Did UMI act willfully and maliciously when it misappropriated GSI’s trade secrets?
Yes
22
No
23
24
Proceed to the next question.
25
26
27
28
13
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
29. Did ISSI act willfully and maliciously when it misappropriated GSI’s trade secrets?
Yes
2
No
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Proceed to the next question.
M. 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 3, or if you answered “No” to question 4, or if you
answered “No” for every schematic in question 14, or if you answered “No” to
question 15, or if you answered “Yes” to questions 16 and 17, or if you answered
“Yes” to question 18, or if you answered “Yes” to questions 19, 20, 21, and 22, or if
you answered “Yes” to questions 23 and 24.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
30. Did GSI initiate and/or maintain its claim of trade secret misappropriation against ISSI in
bad faith?
12
Yes
No
13
14
Proceed to the next question.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
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
31. Did GSI and Cisco have an economic relationship that probably would have resulted in an
economic benefit to GSI?
5
Yes
No
6
7
8
9
10
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
32. Did UMI know of the economic relationship between GSI and Cisco?
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Yes
No
12
13
14
15
If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section II.F.
33. Did UMI engage in unfair competition?
16
Yes
No
17
18
If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section II.F.
19
20
34. 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.F.
25
26
27
28
15
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
35. Was the relationship disrupted?
Yes
2
No
3
4
5
If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section II.F.
36. Was UMI’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to GSI?
6
Yes
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
No
If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section II.F.
C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands
37. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that
was unconscionable?
13
Yes
No
14
15
16
17
18
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section II.D.
38. 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 and
resulted in prejudice to UMI?
19
Yes
No
20
21
Proceed to the next question.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel
39. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI made a representation of fact
relating to its intentional interference with prospective economic relations claim intending
that UMI rely on it, or remained silent where GSI had a duty to speak and the
circumstances required it to speak?
4
Yes
5
No
6
7
8
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section II.E.
40. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI knew the true state of the facts?
9
Yes
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
No
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section II.E.
41. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI was ignorant of the true state of
the facts?
15
Yes
No
16
17
18
19
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section II.E.
42. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI reasonably relied upon GSI’s
conduct to UMI’s injury?
20
Yes
No
21
22
23
If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section II.F. If you answered “No,” proceed to the
next question.
24
25
26
27
28
17
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
2
E. Damages as to UMI
43. Has GSI proven that the conduct in question 33 caused damage to GSI?
3
Yes
No
4
5
Proceed to the next question.
6
44. If so, how much?
7
$__________
8
9
10
Proceed to the next question.
45. Did UMI act willfully and maliciously when it intentionally interfered with GSI’s
prospective economic relations?
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Yes
No
12
13
14
15
If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section II.F.
46. What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award GSI?
16
$____________
17
Proceed to the next question.
18
F. GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Against ISSI
19
47. Did ISSI know of the economic relationship between GSI and Cisco?
20
Yes
21
No
22
23
If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section III.
24
25
26
27
28
18
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
48. Did ISSI engage in unfair competition?
Yes
2
No
3
4
5
6
If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section III.
49. 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?
7
Yes
No
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.
50. Was the relationship disrupted?
12
Yes
No
13
14
If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,”
proceed to Section III.
15
16
51. Was ISSI’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to GSI?
Yes
17
No
18
19
If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section III.
20
G. ISSI Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands
21
22
52. Did ISSI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that
was unconscionable?
23
Yes
No
24
25
26
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section II.H.
27
28
19
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
2
53. 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 and
resulted in prejudice to ISSI?
3
Yes
No
4
5
6
7
8
9
Proceed to the next question.
H. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel
54. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI made a representation of fact
relating to its intentional interference with prospective economic relations claim intending
that ISSI rely on it or remained silent where GSI had a duty to speak and the circumstances
required it to speak?
10
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 II.I.
55. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI knew the true state of the facts?
15
Yes
No
16
17
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section II.I.
18
19
56. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI was ignorant of the true state of
the facts?
20
Yes
No
21
22
23
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section II.I.
24
25
26
27
28
20
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
57. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI reasonably relied upon GSI’s
conduct to ISSI’s injury?
2
Yes
No
3
4
5
Proceed to the next question.
I. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation
6
7
58. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI could have avoided its losses
through reasonable efforts or expenditures?
8
Yes
No
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section II.J.
59. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI failed to make such reasonable
efforts or expenditures?
Yes
14
No
15
16
17
If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section III. If you answered “No,” proceed to the
next question.
J. Damages as to ISSI
18
60. Has GSI proven that the conduct in question 48 caused damage to GSI?
19
Yes
20
No
21
22
Proceed to the next question.
23
61. If so, how much?
24
$__________
25
Proceed to the next question.
26
27
28
21
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
62. Did ISSI act willfully and maliciously when it intentionally interfered with GSI’s
prospective economic relations?
2
Yes
No
3
4
5
6
7
8
If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section III.
63. What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award GSI?
$
Proceed to the next question.
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
22
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
III.
Breach of Contract
A. GSI’s Breach of Contract Claim Against UMI
64. Did GSI and United Memories enter into a contract?
4
Yes
No
5
6
7
8
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section IV.
65. Did UMI fail to comply with its obligations under the contract?
9
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
66. Did UMI’s failure to comply with the terms of the contract cause GSI damage?
Yes
14
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
67. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that
was unconscionable?
20
Yes
No
21
22
23
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section III.C.
24
25
26
27
28
23
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
68. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was directly
related to its claim of breach of contract and resulted in prejudice to UMI?
2
Yes
No
3
4
5
Proceed to the next question.
C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel
6
7
8
69. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI made a representation of fact
relating to its breach of contract claim intending that UMI rely on it, or remained silent
where GSI had a duty to speak and the circumstances required it to speak?
9
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 III.D.
12
13
70. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI knew the true state of the facts?
Yes
14
No
15
16
17
18
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section III.D.
71. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI was ignorant of the true state of
the facts?
19
Yes
No
20
21
22
23
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section III.D.
72. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI reasonably relied upon GSI’s
conduct to UMI’s injury?
24
Yes
25
26
No
Proceed to the next question.
27
28
24
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
2
D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Waiver
73. Did UMI prove that GSI knew that UMI had not performed its contractual promise?
3
Yes
No
4
5
If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section III.E.
6
7
74. Did UMI prove that GSI knew that failure of UMI to perform these contractual promises
gave GSI the right to sue UMI for damages?
8
Yes
No
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section III.E.
75. Did UMI prove that GSI intended to give up this right?
13
Yes
No
14
15
16
17
If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section III.E.
76. Did UMI prove that GSI voluntarily gave up this right?
18
Yes
No
19
20
21
22
Proceed to the next question.
E. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations
77. Did UMI prove that it breached the contract before March 8, 2010?
23
Yes
No
24
25
26
If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section III.F.
27
28
25
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
78. 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, 2010?
2
Yes
No
3
4
5
Proceed to the next question.
F. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation
6
7
79. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI could have avoided its losses
through reasonable efforts or expenditures?
8
Yes
No
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section III.G.
80. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI failed to make such reasonable
efforts or expenditures?
Yes
14
No
15
16
17
18
If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section IV. If you answered “No,” proceed to the
next question.
G. Damages
81. What are GSI’s damages?
19
20
21
a. General damages
$__________
b. Special damages
$ __________
TOTAL
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
$__________
1
2
3
IV.
Fraud
A. GSI’s Claim of Fraud against UMI
82. Did UMI make a false representation to GSI?
4
Yes
No
5
6
7
8
9
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section V.
83. Did UMI know that the representation was false, or did it make the representation
recklessly and without regard for its truth?
10
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.
84. 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
85. Did GSI reasonably rely on the representation?
Yes
21
No
22
23
24
25
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section V.
86. Was GSI’s reliance on UMI’s representation a substantial factor in causing harm to GSI?
26
Yes
No
27
28
27
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
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
87. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that
was unconscionable?
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.
88. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was directly
related to its claim of fraud and resulted in prejudice to UMI?
Yes
No
13
14
15
16
17
Proceed to the next question.
C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel
89. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI made a representation of fact
relating to its fraud claim intending that UMI rely on it, or remained silent where GSI had
a duty to speak and the circumstances required it to speak?
18
Yes
No
19
20
21
22
23
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section IV.D.
90. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI knew the true state of the facts?
Yes
No
24
25
26
27
28
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section IV.D.
91. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI was ignorant of the true state of
the facts?
28
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
Yes
No
2
3
4
5
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section IV.D.
92. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI reasonably relied upon GSI’s
conduct to UMI’s injury?
6
Yes
7
No
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Proceed to the next question.
D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Waiver
93. 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?
12
Yes
13
14
15
16
17
18
No
If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section IV.E.
94. 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?
19
Yes
20
No
21
22
23
24
Proceed to the next question.
E. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations
95. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI made a false representation
that occurred on or before March 8, 2010?
25
Yes
26
No
27
28
29
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section IV.F.
96. Did UMI prove that GSI knew or should have known, with the exercise of reasonable
diligence, of UMI’s false representation on or before March 8, 2010?
4
Yes
No
5
6
7
Proceed to the next question.
F. Damages
8
97. What are GSI’s damages?
9
a. Past economic loss
lost profits
$ __________
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
other past economic loss
$ __________
12
Total Past Economic Damages:
13
b. Future economic loss
14
lost profits
$ __________
15
16
17
$__________
TOTAL
$__________
Proceed to the next question.
98. Did UMI act willfully and maliciously when it made the false representation?
18
Yes
No
19
20
21
22
If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed
to Section V.
99. What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award GSI?
$
23
24
Proceed to the next question.
25
26
27
28
30
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
V.
False Promise
A. GSI’s Claim of False Promise Against UMI
100.
Did UMI make a promise to GSI?
4
Yes
No
5
6
7
8
9
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.
101.
Did UMI intend to perform this promise when UMI made it?
10
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.
102.
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
103.
Did GSI reasonably rely on this promise?
Yes
21
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
31
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
104.
Did UMI perform the promised act?
Yes
2
No
3
4
5
6
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.
105.
Was GSI’s reliance on UMI’s promise a substantial factor in causing harm to GSI?
7
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
106.
Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed
misconduct that was unconscionable?
14
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
107.
Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was
directly related to its claim of false promise and resulted in prejudice to UMI?
19
Yes
20
No
21
22
Proceed to the next question.
23
24
25
26
27
28
32
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel
108.
Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI made a representation of
fact relating to its false promise claim intending that UMI rely on it, or remained silent
where GSI had a duty to speak and the circumstances required it to speak?
4
Yes
No
5
6
7
8
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section V.D.
109.
Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI knew the true state of the
facts?
9
Yes
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
No
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section V.D.
110.
Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI was ignorant of the true
state of the facts?
15
Yes
No
16
17
If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then
proceed to Section V.D.
18
19
111.
Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI reasonably relied upon
GSI’s conduct to UMI’s injury?
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,” proceed to the next
question.
24
25
26
27
28
33
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
2
D. Damages
112.
What are GSI’s damages?
a. Past economic loss
3
4
Lost profits
$ __________
5
Other past economic loss
$ __________
6
Total Past Economic Damages:
$__________
7
b. Future economic loss
8
Lost profits
9
$ __________
TOTAL
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
$__________
Proceed to the next question.
113.
Did UMI act willfully and maliciously when it made the false promise?
13
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
114.
What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award GSI?
18
19
$
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
34
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
1
Have the presiding juror sign and date this form.
2
3
Signed:
Presiding Juror
4
5
Dated:
6
7
After all verdict forms have been signed, notify the courtroom deputy that you are ready to present
your verdict in the courtroom.
8
9
10
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 22, 2015
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
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
35
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
JURY VERDICT FORM
]]>
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?
