Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.
Filing
660
VERDICT SHEET by Google Inc. (GOOGLE INC.'S REVISED 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
GOOGLE INC.’S REVISED PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
Google proposes the following verdict form in response to the Court’s March 17, 2014 rulings.
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.
I.
INFRINGEMENT1
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" for each claim and each accused functionality.
A “Yes” finding is for PUM. A “No” finding is for Google.
The Kaltix Twiddler Used in Google Search and:
Link
Dilip
Rephil
Category
NavBoost
Sessions
Category
Literal
Literal
Literal
Literal
Literal
The Ignored Domains
The CUBAQ
feature of the UBAQ component of Google
component of Google
Content Ads /
Search Ads
YouTube
Literal
DOE
Literal
DOE
Claim 1
Claim 22
1
PUM has accused specific functionality in Google Search, Google Search Ads, Google Content Ads, and YouTube of infringing its patents, not the entirety of
these systems. Google requests that Questions I and II on the verdict form identify the accused functionality rather than identifying the full systems, as PUM’s
proposed questions do.
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" for each claim and each accused functionality.
A “Yes” finding is for PUM. A “No” finding is for Google.
The Kaltix Twiddler Used in Google Search and:
Link
Dilip
Rephil
Category
NavBoost
Sessions
Category
Literal
Literal
Literal
Literal
Literal
Claim 1
Claim 3
Claim 7
Claim 21
-2-
The Ignored Domains
feature of the UBAQ
component of Google
Search Ads
Literal
DOE
The CUBAQ
component of Google
Content Ads /
YouTube
Literal
DOE
II.
INVALIDITY -- ANTICIPATION2
A.
Has Google proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the ‘040
patent is anticipated by the following prior art?
Please answer "Yes" or "No" for each prior art reference below.
A “Yes” finding is for Google. A “No” finding is for PUM.
1.
“Personal WebWatcher”: Mladenic, D. (1996), Personal WebWatcher:
design and implementation
______________________
2.
“Wasfi”: Wasfi, A. (1999), Collecting User Access Patterns for Building
User Profiles and Collaborative Filtering
______________________
3.
“Montebello”: Montebello, M. et al. (1998), A Personal Evolvable
Advisor for WWW Knowledge Based Systems
______________________
2
Google requests that the Court use its format for the questions concerning validity (Questions II and III). In
particular, Google requests that the questions include the identifying short-hand name and the full citation for each
of the prior art references.
-3-
B.
Has Google proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the '276
patent is anticipated by the following prior art?
Please answer "Yes" or "No" for the prior art reference below.
A “Yes” finding is for Google. A “No” finding is for PUM.
1.
“Montebello”: Montebello, M. et al. (1998), A Personal Evolvable
Advisor for WWW Knowledge Based Systems
______________________
-4-
III.
INVALIDITY -- OBVIOUSNESS
A.
Has Google proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of the following
claims of the ‘040 patent are obvious?
Please answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.
A “Yes” finding is for Google. A “No” finding is for PUM.
Claim 1
Claim 22
B.
__________
__________
Has Google proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of the following
claims of the '276 patent are obvious?
Please answer "Yes" or "No" for each claim.
A “Yes” finding is for Google. A “No” finding is for PUM.
Claim 1
Claim 3
Claim 7
Claim 21
__________
__________
__________
__________
-5-
IV.
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______
-6-
Signed this _____ day of March, 2014.
___________________________________
JURY FOREPERSON
-7-
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?