Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.

Filing 667

REDACTED VERSION of 666 Jury Verdict. (rpg) (rpg).

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)

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 P UM A "No" finding is for Coogle.

Google Search (using the Kaltix twiddler)
Search Ads (using the
User Based Ads Quality
model ("UBAQ"))

Content Ads/
YouTube (using the
Content User Based
Ads Quality model
("CUBAQ"))

Link

Dilip

Rephil

Category
NavBoost

Sessions
Category

Literal

Literal

Literal

Literal

Literal

Literal

tJO

NO

tJO

NO

Nu

(00

rvo

NO

Claim 1

f\JO

tJO

Claim 22

N

)

N0

NO

(\) 0

- 1-

DOE

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 isfor Coogle.
Google Search (using the Kaltix twiddler)

Link

I

Dilip

Literal

Literal

Claim 1 I

/'JO

IJ 0

Claim3 I

f\}0

I NO

I

Rephil

I

Category
NavBoost

I

I
.
Sessions
Category

Literal

Literal

Literal

Literal

fJD

tvO

tJO

rJO

rJO

tJO

No I NO I

Claim7

Claim 21

I

(\}0

rJ O

rJ O

Content Ads/
YouTube (using the
Content User Based
Ads Quality model
("CUBAQ"))

Search Ads (using the
User Based Ads Quality
model ("UBAQ"))

ND

[\.) 0

tJ O

-2-

!0 C)

DOE

Literal

tJO
I

(00

A! O

I

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 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?

~e~

'276 Patent
Claim 1

\/eS

Montebello

\lc S

Claim 1

Mladenic

Wasfi

Anticipated?

'I ~· ~

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 P UM
(that the claim is not obvious).
'040 Patent

Obvious?

Claim 1

I

Claim 22

'276 Patent

u~

~ (?~
Obvious?

Claim 1

(I c .::-

Claim3

I\.:: ':::>

I

Claim7

/ C.:

3

\\rS

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

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 isfor PUM
Yes

3.

/

No- - -

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
4.

~

No- - -

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- - -

-5-

No_L

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-