Venture Corporation et al v. Barrett

Filing 228

[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on June 4, 2015. (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2015)

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

VENTURE CORPORATION LTD., et al.,
Plaintiffs and
Counterdefendants,

12
13
14
15
16

v.
JAMES P. BARRETT,
Defendant and
Counterclaimant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1

Please follow the directions below in completing this Special Verdict Form. Your

2

answer to each question must be unanimous. Some of the questions contain legal terms that

3

have been defined and explained in detail in the Jury Instructions. Please refer to the Jury

4

Instructions if you are unsure about the meaning or usage of any legal term that appears in

5

the questions below.
*

6

*

*

7
8
9

SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
We the jury, upon our oath, give the following answers to the court’s questions:

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
2
Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1
2

I.

APPLICABILITY OF THE 2003 VDSI EMPLOYEE INVENTIONS AGREEMENT
(1)

Do you find it more likely true than not that James P. Barrett developed in whole or

3

in part, on the time of Venture Design Services, Inc. (“VDSI”), or using any of VDSI’s equipment,

4

supplies or facilities, the inventions that became known as the following?

5
6

Yes

7

MineTracer

8

Gas Scrubber

9

No

Gas Monitor

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

If you answered “Yes” to this question for each invention, please skip to Question No. 4. If

12

you answered “No” for any of the inventions, please proceed to the next question and answer

13

for each such invention.

14
15

(2)

Do you find it more likely true than not that, at the time of conception or reduction

16

to practice, the inventions that became known as the following were related to VDSI’s business, or

17

the actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of VDSI?

18
19

Yes

20

MineTracer

21

Gas Scrubber

22

No

Gas Monitor

23
24

If you answered “Yes” to this Question, please skip to Question No. 4. If you answered “No”

25

for any of the inventions, please proceed to the next question and answer for each such

26

invention.

27
28
3
Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1
2

(3)

Do you find it more likely true than not that the inventions that became known as

the following resulted from work that Mr. Barrett performed for VDSI?

3
4

Yes

5

MineTracer

6

Gas Scrubber

7

No

Gas Monitor

8
If you answered “No” to this question for each invention please skip to Question No. 5. If you

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

answered “Yes” to this question for any of the inventions, please proceed to the next question

11

and answer for each such invention.

12

(4)

Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that VDSI forfeited its right to

13

ownership of any of the following inventions under the 2003 VDSI employee inventions

14

agreement?

15
16

Yes

17

MineTracer

18

Gas Scrubber

19

Gas Monitor

20
21

Please proceed to the next question.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

No

1
II.

2
3
4
5

(5)

EXISTENCE AND REPUDIATION OF JOINT VENTURE

Do you find it more likely true than not that Mr. Barrett and Venture Corporation

Ltd (“VCL”) entered into a joint venture as a separate business undertaking, outside of Mr.
Barrett’s employment by VDSI?
Yes ______

6

No ______

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

If your answer is “Yes” to this question, please proceed the next question. If your answer is
“No,” please skip to Question No. 13.
(6)

Do you find it more likely true than not that VCL breached the joint venture with

Mr. Barrett by asserting an ownership interest in the MineTracer, Gas Scrubber and Gas Monitor
inventions without respect to any joint venture agreement?
Yes ______

13

No ______

14
15
16
17

If your answer is “Yes” to this question, please proceed the next question. If your answer is
“No,” please skip to Question No. 9.
(7)

Do you find it more likely true than not that Mr. Barrett was harmed by that breach?
Yes ______

18

No ______

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

If your answer is “Yes” to this question, please proceed the next question. If your answer is
“No,” please skip to Question No. 9.
(8)

Do you find it more likely true than not that, before September 13, 2011, Mr. Barrett

knew or should have been aware of facts that made it reasonably foreseeable to him that VCL
intended to assert an ownership interest in the inventions without respect to any joint venture
agreement?
Yes ______

26

No ______

27
28

Please proceed the next question.
5
Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

III.

1
2
3

(9)

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

Do you find it more likely true than not that VCL breached its fiduciary duty to Mr.

Barrett in repudiating the joint venture?

4

Yes ______

5

No ______

6

If your answer is “Yes” to this question, please proceed the next question. If your answer is

7

“No,” please skip to Question No. 13.

8

(10)

Do you find it more likely true than not that Mr. Barrett was harmed by this breach?
Yes ______

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

No ______

11

If your answer is “Yes” to this question, please proceed the next question. If your answer is

12

“No,” please skip to Question No. 13.

13
14

(11)

Do you find it more likely true than not that VCL’s breach was a substantial factor

in causing Mr. Barrett’s harm?

15

Yes ______

16

No ______

17

If your answer is “Yes” to this question, please proceed the next question. If your answer is

18

“No,” please skip to Question No. 13.

19
20
21

(12)

Do you find it more likely true than not that Mr. Barrett knew or should have known

of his harm before September 13, 2009?
Yes ______
No ______

22
23

Please proceed the next question.

24
25
26
27
28
6
Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

IV.

1
2
3
4

(13)

BREACH OF THE DECEMBER 17, 2008 AGREEMENT

Do you find it more likely true than not that VCL breached the December 17, 2008

“Individual to Corporate Patent Rights Assignment Agreement” regarding the patent application
for the MineTracer invention?
Yes ______

5

No ______

6
7
8
9

If your answer is “Yes” to this question, please proceed to the next question. If your answer
is “No,” please skip to Question No. 16.
(14)

Do you find it more likely true than not that Mr. Barrett was harmed by that breach?
Yes ______

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No ______

11
12
13
14
15

If your answer is “Yes” to this question, please proceed to the next question. If your answer
is “No,” please skip to Question No. 16.
(15)

Do you find it more likely true than not that Mr. Barrett knew or should have known

of his harm before September 13, 2009?
Yes ______

16

No ______

17
18

Please proceed to the next question.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

V.

1
2
3
4

(16)

BREACH OF THE JULY 26, 2011 AGREEMENT

Do you find it more likely true than not that VCL breached the July 26, 2011

“Individual to Corporate Patent Rights Assignment Agreement” regarding the patent application
for the Gas Scrubber invention?
Yes ______

5

No ______

6
7
8
9

If your answer is “Yes” to this question, please proceed to the next question. If your answer
is “No,” please skip to Question No. 18.
(17)

Do you find it more likely true than not that Mr. Barrett was harmed by this breach?
Yes ______

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No ______

11
12

Please proceed to the next question.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

VI.

1
2
3
4

(18)

BREACH OF THE DECEMBER 18, 2012 AGREEMENT

Do you find it more likely true than not that VCL breached the December 18, 2012

“Individual-to-Corporate Patent Rights Assignment Agreement” regarding the patent application
for the Gas Monitor invention?
Yes ______

5

No ______

6
7
8
9

If your answer is “Yes” to this question, please proceed to the next question. If your answer
is “No,” please skip to Question No. 20.
(19)

Do you find it more likely true than not that Mr. Barrett was harmed by this breach?
Yes ______

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No ______

11
12

Please proceed to the next question.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

VII.

1
2
3

(20)

Do you find it more likely true than not that VCL acquired the MineTracer, Gas

Scrubber and Gas Monitor inventions by fraud?
Yes ______

4

No ______

5
6
7
8
9

If your answer is “Yes” to this question, please proceed to the next question. If your answer
is “No,” please skip to the Concluding Questions.
(21)

Do you find it more likely true than not that Mr. Barrett was harmed as a result of

this acquisition?
Yes ______

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No ______

11
12
13
14
15

If your answer is “Yes” to this question, please proceed to the next question. If your answer
is “No,” please skip to the Concluding Questions.
(22)

Do you find it more likely true than not that VCL’s conduct was a substantial factor

in causing his harm?
Yes ______

16

No ______

17
18
19
20
21

If your answer is “Yes” to this question, please proceed to the next question. If your answer
is “No,” please skip to the Concluding Questions.
(23)

Do you find it more likely true than not that Mr. Barrett knew or should have known

of his harm before September 13, 2010?
Yes ______

22

No ______

23
24
25

FRAUD

If your answer is “Yes” to this question, please skip to the Concluding Questions. If your
answer is “No,” please answer Question No. 24.

26
27
28

(24)

Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that VCL committed fraud by

engaging in fraud justifying punitive damages?
10
Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

Yes ______

1

No ______

2
3

Please proceed to the Concluding Questions.

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
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

CONCLUDING QUESTIONS: DAMAGES

1
2
3

If you answered “No” to Question Nos. 8, 12, 15, 17, 19 or 23, please state the amount

4

of damages to be awarded to Mr. Barrett to compensate for the amount of harm suffered:

5

$___________________________.

6

If you answered “Yes” in response to Question No. 24, please state the amount of

7

punitive damages to be awarded to Mr. Barrett:

8

$___________________________.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS
I state under penalty of perjury that the answers above represent the unanimous
decision of the jury in this action.

13
14

Dated: __________________
Presiding Juror signature

15
16

Presiding Juror name (please print)

17
18
19
20

After this verdict form has been signed, please notify the clerk that you are ready to
present your verdict in the courtroom.

21
22

SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: June 4, 2015

24

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
12
Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM