Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.
Filing
664
VERDICT FORM. (ntl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
GOOGLE, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
--------------)
)
)
GOOGLE, INC.,
)
)
Counterclaimant,
)
)
v.
)
)
PERSONALIZED USER MODEL, L.L.P.
)
and YOCHAI KONIG,
)
)
Counterclaim-Defendants.
PERSONALIZED USER MODEL, L.L.P.,
C.A. No. 09-525 (LPS)
VERDICT FORM
S5ine6
M''t''
Yd+
C'r···lio•i\t
I.
{"ill''
H't
W'
•'r
... Z''i
1··
l:!t(!l;M')l-''IH'
7·
f
{
•lllli'
''iitMi"IOi&d
*l'
t
'1
ti''
Ff
a·
-·
(twi1iii'
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 P UM A "No" finding is for Google.
Google Search (using the Kaltix twiddler)
Link
Dllip
Reph ii
Category
NavBoost
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
~·1,..,~·e···frn·r·
1
'1
r
"!CJ'·'iwMtJlloo·wr
·a
·u
1-'!·i~'.r.iiliW"·a·1re"
·w·
,.
>"'"'"iii•'
rmri0¥
··1·' '%e"'
irlr-·
1·
t'i.111
+nn'Yttt·
1·
·;;:ra
··1
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 P UM A "No" finding is for Google.
I
Google Search (using the Kaltix twiddler}
Link
I
Dilip
I
Reph ii
I
Literal
I
Literal
I
Literal
I
Category
NavBoost
Literal
.
I Sessions I
Category
I
Claim 1
Claim3
Claim7
Claim 21
-2-
Literal
I
Content Ads/
YouTube (using the
Content User Based
Ads Quality model
("CUBAQ"}}
Search Ads (using the
User Based Ads Quality
model ("UBAQ"}}
Literal
I
DOE
I
Literal
I
DOE
,.
'?
1
1
mw,;;;o.
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 write in yes or no for each box. A "Yes" is a finding for
Google (that the corresponding prior art reference anticipates the
claim). A "No" is a finding for PUM (that the corresponding
prior art reference does not anticipate the claim).
'040 Patent
Prior art
Anticipated?
Mladenic
Montebello
Claim 1
Wasfi
'276 Patent
Anticipated?
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 write in yes or no for each box. A "Yes" is a finding for
Google (that the claim is obvious). A "No" is a finding for PUM
(that the claim is not obvious).
'040 Patent
Obvious?
Claim 1
Claim22
l
'276 Patent
1
Claim 1
Claim3
Claim7
Claim 21
-4-
Obvious?
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
2.
No- - -
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- - -
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
-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?