Leader Technologies Inc. v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 602

Proposed VERDICT SHEET. (ntl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

LEADER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Civil Action No. 08-862-JJF/LPS
Plaintiff-Counterdefendant,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant-Counterclaimant.

VERDICT FORM
A.

Leader’s Patent Infringement Claims Against Facebook
1.

Literal Infringement

Do you find that Leader has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Facebook
has literally infringed each and every element of any of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent
No. 7,139,761?
YES _____
a.

NO _____

If you answered “Yes,” please place a check mark next to the claims you
found to be infringed.

Claim 1:

_____

Claim 4:

_____

Claim 9:

_____

Claim 11: _____

Claim 16: _____

Claim 21: _____

Claim 23: _____

Claim 25: _____

Claim 31: _____

Claim 32: _____

Claim 7:

_____

2.

Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents

If you found that Facebook did not literally infringe some or all of the claims of U.S.
Patent No. 7,139,761 in Question 1, do you find that Leader has proven by a
preponderance of the evidence that Facebook has infringed any of those claims under the
doctrine of equivalents?
YES _____
a.

NO _____

If you answered “Yes,” please mark the claims you found to be infringed
under the doctrine of equivalents.

Claim 1:

_____

Claim 4:

Claim 9:

_____

Claim 11: _____

Claim 16: _____

Claim 21: _____

Claim 23: _____

Claim 25: _____

Claim 31: _____

Claim 32: _____

3.

_____

Claim 7:

_____

Control or Direction

With respect to its infringement claims against Facebook with respect to claims 9, 11,
and 16, has Leader shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Facebook controls or
directs the accused actions of Facebook end users and/or Facebook employees?
a.

Facebook end users

YES _____

NO _____

b.

Facebook employees

YES _____

NO _____

4.

Priority Date of U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761

Do you find that Leader has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that U.S. Patent
Application No. 60/432255 (the “Provisional Application”) fully discloses each and
every element of any asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761?
YES _____

a.

NO _____

If you answered “Yes,” please mark the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No.
7,139,761 for which you found that each and every element was fully
disclosed by the Provisional Application.

Claim 1:

_____

Claim 4:

Claim 9:

_____

Claim 11: _____

Claim 16: _____

Claim 21: _____

Claim 23: _____

Claim 25: _____

Claim 31: _____

Claim 32: _____

B.

_____

Claim 7:

_____

Facebook’s Patent Invalidity Defenses
1.

On-Sale Bar

Do you find that Facebook has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted
claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 are invalid because the alleged invention was the subject
of an invalidating offer of sale?
YES _____
2.

NO _____

Prior Public Use

Do you find that Facebook has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted
claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 are invalid because the alleged invention was the
subject of an invalidating public use?
YES _____

NO _____

3.

Anticipation by iManage

Do you find that Facebook has proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the
asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 are invalid because they are anticipated by
iManage DeskSite 6.0 (“iManage”)?
YES _____
a.

NO _____

If you answered “Yes,” please mark the claims you found to be
anticipated.

Claim 1:

_____

Claim 4:

Claim 9:

_____

Claim 11: _____

Claim 16: _____

Claim 21: _____

Claim 23: _____

Claim 25: _____

Claim 31: _____

Claim 32: _____

4.

_____

Claim 7:

_____

Anticipation by Swartz

Do you find that Facebook has proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the
asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 are invalid because they are anticipated by U.S.
Patent No. 6,236,994 B1 (“Swartz”)?
YES _____
a.

NO _____

If you answered “Yes,” please mark the claims you found to be
anticipated.

Claim 1:

_____

Claim 4:

_____

Claim 9:

_____

Claim 11: _____

Claim 16: _____

Claim 21: _____

Claim 23: _____

Claim 25: _____

Claim 31: _____

Claim 32: _____

Claim 7:

_____

5.

Anticipation by Hubert

Do you find that Facebook has proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the
asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 are invalid because they are anticipated by
European Patent Application No. EP 1 087 306 A2 or U.S. Patent No. 7,590,934 B2
(“Hubert”)?
YES _____
a.

NO _____

If you answered “Yes,” please mark the claims you found to be
anticipated.

Claim 1:

_____

Claim 4:

Claim 9:

_____

Claim 11: _____

Claim 16: _____

Claim 21: _____

Claim 23: _____

Claim 25: _____

Claim 31: _____

Claim 32: _____

6.

_____

Claim 7:

_____

Obviousness

Do you find that Facebook has proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the
claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 are invalid on the ground of obviousness?
YES _____
a.

NO _____

If you answered “Yes,” please mark the claims you found to be obvious.

Claim 1:

_____

Claim 4:

_____

Claim 9:

_____

Claim 11: _____

Claim 16: _____

Claim 21: _____

Claim 23: _____

Claim 25: _____

Claim 31: _____

Claim 32: _____

Claim 7:

_____

Signatures
Date______________________
__________________________
FOREPERSON
__________________________

__________________________

__________________________

__________________________

__________________________

__________________________

__________________________