Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.

Filing 590

VERDICT SHEET by Google Inc. . (Moore, David)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
PERSONALIZED USER MODEL, L.L.P.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
GOOGLE, INC.
Counterclaimant,
v.
PERSONALIZED USER MODEL, LLP and
YOCHAI KONIG
Counterdefendants.

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

C.A. No. 09-525-LPS

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Defendant Google, Inc. propose the following verdict form. Google's proposed verdict
form is made without waiver of Google's pending motions, which if granted, may render portions
of the following unnecessary. Google further reserves the right to amend, supplement, or modify
this proposed verdict form in light of further developments and based on the evidence and
arguments presented at trial. Google expects that the parties will meet and confer to refine the
proposed verdict form as events continue to narrow the issues.

Instructions: When answering the following questions and filling out this Verdict Form,
please follow the directions provided throughout the form. Your answer to each question must
be unanimous. Some of the questions contain terms that are defined and explained in the Jury
Instructions. Please refer to the Jury Instructions if you are unsure about the meaning or usage of
any term that appears in the questions below.
We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return
them under the instructions of this court as our verdict in this case.

2

I.

BREACH-OF-CONTRACT
A.

Did Yochai Konig (“Konig”) conceive the inventions in the Asserted Patents
when he was employed at SRI International (“SRI”)?
_____YES

B.

_____NO

Did the inventions in the Asserted Patents result from any work performed by
Konig for SRI?
_____YES

C.

_____NO

At the time they were conceived or reduced to practice, did the inventions in the
Asserted Patents relate to SRI’s business or actual or demonstrably anticipated
research or development?
_____YES

D.

_____NO

Did Konig breach his employment contract with SRI by failing to assign the
Asserted Patents to SRI?
_____YES

E.

_____NO

Did Konig and PUM unlawfully convert SRI's and Google's interest in the
Asserted Patents?
_____YES

_____NO

If you have found that Dr. Konig breached his employment contract with SRI (i.e., you have
answered “yes” to Question I.D), then you are finished and do not answer any of the following
questions.

3

II.

INFRINGEMENT
A.

Has Plaintiff PUM proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the “Kaltix”
twiddler used in Google Search directly infringed claims 1, 11, 22, or 34 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,981,040 (“the ‘040 patent”)?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.

Literal Infringement?
Claim 1

__________

__________

Claim 11

__________

__________

Claim 22

__________

__________

Claim 34

B.

Infringement Under The
Doctrine of Equivalents?

__________

__________

Has Plaintiff PUM proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the “Kaltix”
twiddler used in Google Search directly infringed claims 1, 3, 6, 21, or 22 of U.S.
Patent No. 7,685,276 ("the '276 patent")?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.

Literal Infringement?

Infringement Under The
Doctrine of Equivalents?

Claim 1

__________

__________

Claim 3

__________

__________

Claim 6

__________

__________

Claim 21

__________

__________

Claim 22

__________

__________

4

C.

Has Plaintiff PUM proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the ignored
domains functionality in the User Based Ads Quality (“UBAQ”) component of
Google Search Ads directly infringes claims 1, 11, 22, or 34 of U.S. Patent No.
6,981,040 (“the ‘040 patent”)?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.

Literal Infringement?

Infringement Under The
Doctrine of Equivalents?

Claim 1

__________

__________

Claim 11

__________

__________

Claim 22

__________

__________

Claim 34

__________

__________

5

D.

Has Plaintiff PUM proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the ignored
domains functionality in the User Based Ads Quality (“UBAQ”) component of
Google Search Ads directly infringes claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, or 21 of U.S. Patent No.
7,685,276 ("the '276 patent")?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.

Literal Infringement?

Infringement Under The
Doctrine of Equivalents?

Claim 1

__________

__________

Claim 3

___________

__________

Claim 5

__________

__________

Claim 6

__________

__________

Claim 7

__________

__________

Claim 21

__________

__________

6

E.

Has Plaintiff PUM proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Content
User-Based Ads Quality (“CUBAQ”) component of Google AdSense for Content
directly infringes claims 1, 11, 22, or 34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,981,040 (“the ‘040
patent”)?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.

Literal Infringement?

Infringement Under The
Doctrine of Equivalents?

Claim 1

__________

__________

Claim 11

__________

__________

Claim 22

__________

__________

Claim 34

__________

__________

7

F.

Has Plaintiff PUM proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Content
User-Based Ads Quality (“CUBAQ”) component of Google AdSense for Content
directly infringes claims 1, 3, 6, 7, or 22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,685,276 ("the '276
patent")?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.

Literal Infringement?
Claim 1

__________

__________

Claim 3

__________

__________

Claim 6

__________

__________

Claim 7

__________

__________

Claim 22

G.

Infringement Under The
Doctrine of Equivalents?

__________

__________

Has Plaintiff PUM proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Content
User-Based Ads Quality (“CUBAQ”) component of YouTube Ads directly
infringes claims 1, 11, 22, or 34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,981,040 (“the ‘040 patent”)?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.

Literal Infringement?

Infringement Under The
Doctrine of Equivalents?

Claim 1

__________

__________

Claim 11

__________

__________

Claim 22

__________

__________

Claim 34

__________

__________

8

H.

Has Plaintiff PUM proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Content
User-Based Ads Quality (“CUBAQ”) component of YouTube Ads directly
infringes claims 1, 3, 6, 7, or 22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,685,276 ("the '276 patent")?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.

Literal Infringement?
Claim 1

__________

__________

Claim 3

__________

__________

Claim 6

__________

__________

Claim 7

__________

__________

Claim 22

I.

Infringement Under The
Doctrine of Equivalents?

__________

__________

Has Plaintiff PUM proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the use of
“Portrait” in YouTube Video Recommendations directly infringed claims 1, 11,
22, or 34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,981,040 (“the ‘040 patent”)?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.

Literal Infringement?
Claim 11

__________

Claim 22

__________

Claim 34

__________

9

INVALIDITY
J.

Has Google proven, by a preponderance of the evidence,1 that any of the
following claims of the ‘040 patent are anticipated?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.
Claim 1
Claim 11

__________

Claim 22

__________

Claim 34

K.

__________

__________

Has Google proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of the following
claims of the '276 patent are anticipated?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.
Claim 1

__________

Claim 3

__________

Claim 5

__________

Claim 6

__________

Claim 7

__________

Claim 21

__________

Claim 22

__________

1

As detailed in Google's Opposition to PUM's Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence
of Reexamination Proceedings at Trial, the final PTO rejections of both patents in suit are
relevant information for the jury to consider and should not be excluded. (See Final Pretrial
Order, Ex. 13.) In the event that the Court precludes Google from introducing evidence that the
patents in suit have been rejected by the PTO during the reexamination process, Google requests
that the Court include the preponderance of the evidence burden in all questions concerning
invalidity. Because the PTO issued final rejections of both patents, the presumption of validity
should no longer apply, and Google should not have to meet a higher burden of proof to
demonstrate invalidity.
10

L.

Has Google proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of the following
claims of the ‘040 patent are obvious?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.
Claim 1
Claim 11

__________

Claim 22

__________

Claim 34

M.

__________

__________

Has Google proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of the following
claims of the '276 patent" are obvious?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.
Claim 1

__________

Claim 3

__________

Claim 5

__________

Claim 6

__________

Claim 7

__________

Claim 21

__________

Claim 22

__________

Signed this _____ day of March, 2014.
___________________________________
JURY FOREPERSON

11

Respectfully submitted,
OF COUNSEL:
Charles K. Verhoeven
David A. Perlson
Antonio R. Sistos
Margaret Pirnie Kammerud
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California St.
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel.: [phone]
Joshua Lee Sohn
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
777 6th Street NW, 11th Floor
Washington, DC 20001-3706
Tel: [phone]

POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
By: /s/ David E. Moore
Richard L. Horwitz (#2246)
David E. Moore (#3983)
Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
1313 N. Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.

Andrea Pallios Roberts
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Tel.: [phone]
Dated: February 21, 2014
1140257 / 34638

12