Corning Optical Communications Wireless Ltd. v. Solid, Inc. et al

Filing 404

[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on October 13, 2015 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2015)

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

CORNING OPTICAL
COMMUNICATIONS WIRELESS LTD.,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
SOLID, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Case No. 5:14-cv-03750-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

Case No. 5:14-cv-03750-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1

FINDINGS RELATING TO DAMAGES

2

If you have found that Reach and/or SOLiD infringed a valid claim of the ’837 Patent, proceed to
answer the remaining questions. If you did not so answer—for example, you answered “No” to all
claims for Questions #1, #2 and #3, and/or found all claims invalidated by Questions #4 or #5—do
not answer any remaining questions.

3
4
5

D.

6. What lost profits, if any, did Corning show it more likely than not suffered as a result of
sales that it would with reasonable probability have made but for SOLiD and Reach’s
infringement?

6
7

$ _______________________

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

LOST PROFITS DAMAGES

E.

REASONABLE ROYALTY DAMAGES
7. For those infringing sales for which Corning has not proved its entitlement to lost
profits, what has it proved it is entitled to as a reasonable royalty?
a) Royalty payment of:

12

%

_______________________

13

$

_______________________

x

Royalty Base

14

$

_______________________

=

Total Royalty (Rate x Base)

Royalty Rate

15
16

[Please proceed to Page 7]

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Case No. 5:14-cv-03750-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM