Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.

Filing 649

VERDICT SHEET by Google Inc. (DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM). (Horwitz, Richard)

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. proposes the following verdict form.

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.

INFRINGEMENT1
A.

Has Plaintiff PUM proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the “Kaltix”
twiddler used in Google Search2 on or before June 2011 directly infringed claims
1 or 22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,981,040 (“the ‘040 patent”)?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.

Literal Infringement?
Claim 1

__________

__________

Claim 22

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 on or before June 2011 directly infringed claims
1, 3, or 21 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 21

1

Infringement Under The
Doctrine of Equivalents?

__________

__________

Google has organized the verdict form in the order in which issues were presented at

trial.
2

In its proposed verdict form, Google has identified the specific aspects of each system
that PUM has accused of infringement in order to clarify PUM’s infringement theory for the jury
and preserve Google’s rights on appeal.
3

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 used on or before June 2011 directly infringed claims 1 or 22
of U.S. Patent No. 6,981,040 (“the ‘040 patent”)?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.

Literal Infringement?
Claim 1

__________

__________

Claim 22

D.

Infringement Under The
Doctrine of Equivalents?

__________

__________

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 used on or before June 2011 directly infringed claims 1, 3, 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 7

__________

__________

Claim 21

__________

__________

4

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
used on or before June 2011 directly infringed claims 1 or 22 of U.S. Patent No.
6,981,040 (“the ‘040 patent”)?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.

Literal Infringement?
Claim 1

__________

__________

Claim 22

F.

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 Google AdSense for Content
used on or before June 2011 directly infringed claims 1, 3, or 7 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 7

__________

__________

5

G.

Has Plaintiff PUM proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Content
User-Based Ads Quality (“CUBAQ”) component of YouTube Ads used on or
before June 2011 directly infringed claims 1 or 22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,981,040
(“the ‘040 patent”)?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.

Literal Infringement?
Claim 1

__________

__________

Claim 22

H.

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 used on or
before June 2011 directly infringed claims 1, 3, or 7 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 7

__________

__________

6

II.

BREACH-OF-CONTRACT
A.

Has Google proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Yochai Konig
breached his employment contract with SRI?
_____YES

_____NO

7

III.

INVALIDITY
A.

Has Google proven, by clear and convincing evidence, 3 that any of the following
claims of the ‘040 patent are anticipated?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.
Claim 1

B.

__________

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

__________

3

Google asked that if the Court precluded Google from introducing evidence that the
patents in suit have been rejected by the PTO during the reexamination process, then the Court
instruct the jury that invalidity must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. This was
reflected in Google’s original proposed verdict form. However, the Court precluded evidence of
the reexamination proceedings and, in relation to the preliminary jury instructions, instructed the
jury that the burden for proving invalidity is by clear and convincing evidence. Google
understands that the Court already has ruled on this issue, but maintains its position for purposes
of appeal.
8

C.

Has Google proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of the following
claims of the ‘040 patent are obvious?
Answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.
Claim 1
Claim 22

D.

__________
__________

Has Google proven, by clear and convincing 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 7

__________

Claim 21

__________

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

9