Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.

Filing 593

VERDICT SHEET by Personalized User Model LLP, Konig Yochai . (Tigan, Jeremy)

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, L.L.P.
)
and YOCHAI KONIG,
)
)
Counterclaim-Defendants.
)

C.A. No. 09-525 (LPS)

PERSONALIZED USER MODEL, L.L.P’S
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

I.

INFRINGEMENT
A.

U.S. Patent No. 6,981,040 (the ’040 Patent)
1.

Has PUM proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Google products directly
infringe the following claims of the ’040 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents?
Please answer yes or no. A “Yes” finding is for PUM. A “No” finding is for Google.

’040 Patent

Claim 1
Literal

D.O.E.

Claim 11
Literal

D.O.E.

Products
Search
Search Ads
(Adwords)
Content Ads
YouTube Video
Recommendations

-1-

Claim 22
Literal

D.O.E.

Claim 34
Literal

D.O.E.

2.

Has PUM proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Google products
indirectly infringe the following claims of the ’040 Patent?
Please answer yes or no. A “Yes” finding is for PUM. A “No” finding is for Google.

Products

Claim 1

Claim 11

Search Ads (Adwords)
Content Ads

-2-

Claim 22

Claim 34

B.

U.S. Patent No. 7,685,276 (the ’276 Patent)
3.

Has PUM proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Google products directly
infringe the following claims of the ’276 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents?
Please answer yes or no. A “Yes” finding is for PUM. A “No” finding is for Google.

’276 Patent

Claim 1
Literal

D.O.E.

Claim 3
Literal

D.O.E.

Claim 5
Literal

Claim 6

D.O.E.

Products
Search
Search Ads
(Adwords)
Content Ads

-3-

Literal

D.O.E.

Claim 7
Literal

D.O.E.

Claim 21
Literal

D.O.E.

Claim 22
Literal

D.O.E.

4.

Has PUM proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Google products
indirectly infringe the following claims of the ’276 Patent?
Please answer yes or no. A “Yes” finding is for PUM. A “No” finding is for Google.

Products

Claim 1

Claim 3

Claim 5

Claim 6

Search
Search Ads
(Adwords)
Content Ads

-4-

Claim 7

Claim 21

Claim 22

II.

INVALIDITY
A.

ANTICIPATION
5.

Do you find that Google has proven by clear and convincing
evidence that any claim (or claims) of the asserted patents is (are)
invalid as anticipated by a single prior art reference?
Please answer yes or no. A “Yes” finding is for Google. A “No”
finding is for PUM. For any claim (or claims) that you mark
“Yes,” please identify the prior art that anticipated the claim.

’040 Patent

Yes

No

Prior art (if applicable)

Yes

No

Prior art (if applicable)

Claim 1
Claim 11
Claim 22
Claim 34

’276 Patent
Claim 1
Claim 3
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 21
Claim 22

5

B.

OBVIOUSNESS
6.

Do you find that Google has proven by clear and convincing
evidence that any claim (or claims) of the asserted patents is (are)
invalid as obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention?
Please answer yes or no. A “Yes” finding is for Google. A “No”
finding is for PUM. For any claim (or claims) that you mark
“Yes,” please identify the prior art combination(s) that rendered
the claim obvious.

’040 Patent

Yes

No

Prior art combination(s) (if applicable)

Claim 1

Claim 11

Claim 22

Claim 34

-6-

’276 Patent

Yes

No

Prior art combination(s) (if applicable)

Claim 1

Claim 3

Claim 5

Claim 6

Claim 7

Claim 21

Claim 22

-7-

III.

GOOGLE’S BREACH OF CONTRACT COUNTERCLAIM
7.

Has PUM proven by a preponderance of the evidence that SRI’s
breach of contract claim against Dr. Konig is barred by the statute
of limitations?
Please answer yes or no. A “Yes” finding is for PUM. A “No”
finding is for Google.
Yes_______ No_______
If “Yes,” then stop. If “No,” please continue.

8.

Has Google proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it
acquired from SRI the right to assert SRI’s breach of employment
contract claim against Dr. Konig?
Please answer yes or no. A “Yes” finding is for Google. A “No”
finding is for PUM.
Yes_______ No_______
If “No,” then stop. If “Yes,” please continue.

9.

Has Google proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
Dr. Konig breached his employment agreement with SRI by failing
to assign his invention to SRI?
Please answer yes or no. A “Yes” finding is for Google. A “No”
finding is for PUM.
Yes_______ No______

10.

Has PUM shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr.
Konig’s invention was protected by Section 2870 of the California
Labor Code?
Please answer yes or no. A “Yes” finding is for PUM. A “No”
finding is for Google.
Yes_______ No______

-8-