Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.

Filing 661

VERDICT SHEET by Personalized User Model LLP [Revised Proposed Verdict Form]. (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
REVISED 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 in each box. A “Yes” finding is for PUM. A “No” finding is for Google.
Google Search (using the Kaltix twiddler)

Link

Dilip

Rephil

CatNav
Boost

Sessions
Category

Literal

Literal

Literal

Literal

Literal

Claim 1

Claim 22

-1-

Search Ads (using the
User Based Ads Quality
model (“UBAQ”))
Literal

DOE

Content Ads/
YouTube (using the
Content User Based
Ads Quality model
(“CUBAQ”))
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 in each box. A “Yes” finding is for PUM. A “No” finding is for Google.
Google Search (using the Kaltix twiddler)

Link

Dilip

Rephil

CatNav
Boost

Sessions
Category

Literal

Literal

Literal

Literal

Literal

Claim 1

Claim 3

Claim 7

Claim 21

-2-

Search Ads (using the
User Based Ads Quality
model (“UBAQ”))

Literal

DOE

Content Ads/
YouTube (using the
Content User Based
Ads Quality model
(“CUBAQ”))
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.
’040 Patent

Yes

No

Prior art
Mladenic

Montebello

Claim 1

Wasfi

’276 Patent

Yes

No

Claim 1

Prior art
Montebello

-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.
’040 Patent

Yes

No

Yes

No

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

8095241

-6-