Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.

Filing 652

VERDICT SHEET by Personalized User Model LLP --Personalized User Model, L.L.P.'s Corrected Proposed Verdict Form --. (Tigan, Jeremy)

Download PDF
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 CORRECTED PROPOSED VERDICT FORM I. INFRINGEMENT A. U.S. Patent No. 6,981,040 (the ’040 Patent) 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 (“DOE”)? Please answer yes or no. A “Yes” finding is for PUM. A “No” finding is for Google. Google Search Link Dilip Rephil CatNav Boost Literal Literal Literal Literal Claim 1 Claim 22 -1 - Sessions Category Literal Search Ads Literal DOE Content Ads/ YouTube Literal DOE B. U.S. Patent No. 7,685,276 (the ’276 Patent) 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 (“DOE”)? Please answer yes or no. A “Yes” finding is for PUM. A “No” finding is for Google. Google Search Link Dilip Rephil CatNav Boost Literal Literal Literal Literal Claim 1 Claim 3 Claim 7 Claim 21 -2- Sessions Category Literal Search Ads Literal DOE Content Ads/ YouTube Literal DOE II. INVALIDITY A. ANTICIPATION 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 22 ’276 Patent Claim 1 Claim 3 Claim 7 Claim 21 -3 - B. OBVIOUSNESS 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 (if applicable) Yes No Prior art (if applicable) Claim 1 Claim 22 ’276 Patent Claim 1 Claim 3 Claim 7 Claim 21 -4- III. GOOGLE’S BREACH OF CONTRACT COUNTERCLAIM 1. Has Google proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the three-year statute of limitations that applies to the breach of contract claim against Dr. Konig was tolled? 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. 2. 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. 3. 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______ 4. 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______ -5- When the jury has reached a verdict, you must each sign this verdict form and signal the U.S. Marshal that you are ready to render a verdict. Dated: Signed: Foreperson 7965810 -6-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?