Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.

Filing 676

Letter to The Honorable Leonard P. Stark from Karen Jacobs regarding Proposed Form of Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A-D)(Jacobs, Karen)

EXHIBIT A

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)

[PROPOSED] INTERIM JUDGMENT FOLLOWING JURY VERDICT
This action came before the Court for a trial by jury on March 10, 2014. The issues have been
tried, and the jury rendered its verdict on March 20, 2014. The verdict was accompanied by the
verdict form (D.I. 666), a copy of which is attached hereto. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered on
the March 20, 2014 verdict in favor of Defendant, Google, Inc. and against Plaintiffs, Personalized
User Model (“PUM”) and Yochai Konig (“Konig”) on the claims of infringement, validity, and
breach of contract set out in the attached verdict form.
This Judgment is subject to modification following the Court's consideration of the parties'
post-trial motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

March _______, 2014

__________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00525-LPS Document 667 Filed 03/20/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 19249

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

Case 1:09-cv-00525-LPS Document 667 Filed 03/20/14 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 19250

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

Case 1:09-cv-00525-LPS Document 667 Filed 03/20/14 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 19251

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

Case 1:09-cv-00525-LPS Document 667 Filed 03/20/14 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 19252

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-

Case 1:09-cv-00525-LPS Document 667 Filed 03/20/14 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 19253

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-

Case 1:09-cv-00525-LPS Document 667 Filed 03/20/14 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 19254

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

Case 1:09-cv-00525-LPS Document 667 Filed 03/20/14 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 19255

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-

EXHIBIT B

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 17035

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DEPUY SYNTHES PRODUCTS, LLC,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)

v.

)

C.A. No. 11-652-LPS

)

GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC.,

)
)

Defendant.

)

JUDGMENT FOLLOWING JURY VERDICT
This action came before the Court for a trial by jury beginning on June 3, 2013. The
issues have been tried and the jury rendered a verdict on June 14, 2013. The verdict was
accompanied by the verdict form (D.I. 321, 322), a copy of which is attached hereto. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered
on the June 14, 2013 verdict in favor of Plaintiff DePuy Synthes Products, LLC ("Synthes"), and
against Defendant Globus Medical, Inc. ("Globus"), on all claims of infringement, validity and
damages as set out in the attached verdict form.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered
in favor ofSynthes, and against Globus, for damages in the amount of$16,001,822.25.
This Judgment is subject to modification following the Court's consideration of the
parties' post-trial motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 17036

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
)

DEPUY SYNTHES PRODUCTS, LLC,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)

v.

C.A. No. 11-652-LPS

)
)

GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC.,

)
)

Defendant.

JURY VERDICT FORM

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 17037

This case will be decided on the basis of the answers that you give to certain questions.
Each of the questions calls for a "YES" or ''NO" answer, or for a number. When answering the
following questions and filling out this Verdict Form, please refer to the Jury Instructions for
guidance on the law applicable to the subject matter covered by each question.
The answer to each question must be based on a unanimous decision. When all of you
have agreed on any answer, the Foreperson of the jury will write the answer in the space
provided. As you will note from the wording of the questions, depending on how you answer
certain questions, you may not have to answer others.
When you have answered all the questions that require answers, place the completed
verdict form in an envelope the Court will provide to you and send the Court a note stating that
you have reached a verdict.
Do not assume from the questions or from the wording of the questions or from the
Court' s instructions on them what the answers should be.

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 17038

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.

INFRINGEMENT

A.

Infringement- Globus' Independence®Product
1.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Independence® product literally infringed the following claim of U.S.
Patent No. 7,875,076 ("the '076 patent")?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is afindingfor Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.
Claim 1:

YES ~

NO

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 2.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 3.
2.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Independence® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim ofthe '076 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.
Claim 1:

NO

YES

Ifyou answered YES, please answer question number 3.
Ifyou answered no, please skip to question number 5.
3.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Globus'
Independence® product literally infringed the following claim of the '076
patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 11:

YES

..L

NO

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 4.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 5.

2

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 17039

4.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Independence®product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim ofthe ' 076 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Sy nthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim 11:
5.

NO

YES

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Independence®product literally infringed the following claim of U.S.
Patent No. 7,862,616 ("the ' 616 patent")?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim 1:

NO

YES V

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 6.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 7.
6.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Independence®product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim of the ' 616 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is afindingfor Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.

Claim 1:

NO

YES

Ifyou answered YES, please answer question number 7.
Ifyou answered no, please skip to question number 9.
7.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus '
Independence®product literally infringed the following claim of the ' 616
patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim 13 :

YEs:L

NO

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 8.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 9.

3

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 17040

8.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Independence® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim of the '616 patent?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 13:
9.

YES

NO

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Independence® product literally infringed the following claim ofU.S.
Patent No. 7,846,207 ("the '207 patent")?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is afindingfor Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.
Claim 1:

YEs /

NO

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 10.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 11.
10.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Globus'
Independence® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim of the '207 patent?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is afindingfor Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.
Claim 1:

NO

YES

Ifyou answered YES, please answer question number 11.
Ifyou answered no, please skip to question number 15.
11.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Independence® product literally infringed the following claim of the '207
patent?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 2:

YES

V

NO

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 12.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 13.

4

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 17041

12.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus '
Independence®product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim of the ' 207 patent?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 2:
13.

YES

NO

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Independence® product literally infringed the following claim of the '207
patent?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.
Claim 16:

YES

I

NO

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 14.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 15.
14.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Independence® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim ofthe ' 207 patent?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.
Claim 16:
15.

YES

NO

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Independence® product literally infringed the following claim of the ' 207
patent?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.
Claim 42:

YES /

NO

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 16.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number B.1.

5

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 17042

16.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Independence® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim of the '207 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.
Claim 42:

NO

YES

6

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 17043

B.

Infringement- Globus' Coalition® Product
1.

Has Synthes proven by apreponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Coalition® product literally infringed the following claim of U.S. Patent
No. 7,875,076 ("the '076 patent")?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim 1:

YES

V

NO

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 2.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 3.
2.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Coalition® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim ofthe '076 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is afindingfor Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim 1:

YES

NO

Ifyou answered YES, please answer question number 3.
Ifyou answered no, please skip to question number 5.
3.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Globus'
Coalition® product literally infringed the following claim of the '076
patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.

Claim 11:

NO

YES V

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 4.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 5.
4.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Coalition® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim of the '076 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is afindingfor Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim 11:

YES

NO

7

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 17044

5.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Coalition® product literally infringed the following claim of U.S. Patent
No. 7,862,616 ("the '616 patent")?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim 1:

NO

YES /

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 6.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 7.
6.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Coalition® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim of the '616 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim 1:

NO

YES

Ifyou answered YES, please answer question number 7.
Ifyou answered no, please skip to question number 9.
7.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Coalition® product literally infringed the following claim of the '616
patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim 13:

YES ~

NO

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 8.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 9.
8.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Coalition® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim of the '616 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim 13:

NO

YES

8

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 17045

9.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Coalition® product literally infringed the following claim of U.S. Patent
No. 7,846,207 ("the '207 patent")?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.
Claim 1:

YES /

NO

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 10.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 11.
10.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Coalition® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim ofthe '207 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 1:

YES

NO

Ifyou answered YES, please answer question number 11.
Ifyou answered no, please skip to question number 15.
11.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Coalition® product literally infringed the following claim of the '207
patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 2:

YES /

NO

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 12.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 13.
12.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Coalition® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim of the '207 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is afindingfor Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.
Claim 2:

YES

NO

9

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 17046

13.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Coalition®product literally infringed the following claim of the ' 207
patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 16:

NO

YES /

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 14.
Ify ou answered YES, please skip to question number 15.
14.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Coalition®product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim of the '207 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is afindingfor Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 16:

15.

YES

NO

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Coalition®product literally infringed the following claim of the '207
patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 42:

YES _:/'

NO

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 16.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number C.1 .
16.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
Coalition®product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim ofthe ' 207 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 42:

YES

NO

10

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 17047

C.

Infringement- Globus' InterContinental® Product
1.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
InterContinental® product literally infringed the following claim of U.S.
Patent No. 7,875,076 ("the '076 patent")?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim 1:

NO

YES /

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 2.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 3.
2.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
InterContinental® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim of the '076 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim 1:

NO

YES

Ifyou answered YES, please answer question number 3.
Ifyou answered no, please skip to question number 5.
3.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
InterContinental® product literally infringed the following claim ofthe
'076 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding y r Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim 11:

YES

Y

NO

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 4.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 5.
4.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
InterContinental® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim of the '076 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim 11:

NO

YES

11

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 17048

5.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
InterContinental® product literally infringed the following claim ofU.S.
Patent No. 7,862,616 ("the ' 616 patent")?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 1:

YES /

NO

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 6.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 7.
6.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Globus'
InterContinental® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim of the '616 patent?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 1:

YES

NO

Ifyou answered YES, please answer question number 7.
Ifyou answered no, please skip to question number 9.
7.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
InterContinental® product literally infringed the following claim of the
' 616 patent?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 13:

NO

YES L

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 8.
Ify ou answered YES, please skip to question number 9.
8.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
InterContinental® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim of the ' 616 patent?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.
Claim 13:

NO

YES

12

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 17049

9.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
InterContinental® product literally infringed the following claim of U.S.
Patent No. 7,846,207 ("the '207 patent")?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 1:

YEs L

NO

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 10.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 11.
10.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
InterContinental® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim of the '207 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 1:

NO

YES

Ifyou answered YES, please answer question number 11.
Ifyou answered no, please skip to question number 15.
11.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Globus'
InterContinental® product literally infringed the following claim of the
'207 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 2:

YEs L

NO

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 12.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 13.
12.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
InterContinental® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim of the '207 patent?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.
Claim 2:

NO

YES

13

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 17050

13.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
InterContinental®product literally infringed the following claim of the
' 207 patent?
Please check YES or NO
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim 16:

NO

YES /

Ifyou answered NO, please answer question number 14.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number 15.
14.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
InterContinental®product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim ofthe '207 patent?
Please check YES or NO
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.

Claim 16:
15.

NO

YES

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
InterContinental®product literally infringed the following claim ofthe
' 207 patent?
Please check YES or NO
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim42:

NO

YES V

Ify ou answered NO, please answer question number 16.
Ifyou answered YES, please skip to question number D.1.
16.

Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'
InterContinental®product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents the
following claim ofthe ' 207 patent?
Please check YES or NO
YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.

Claim 42:

NO

YES

14

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 17051

II.

VALIDITY
D.

Obviousness in View of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,106 ("The Fraser Patent")
1.

Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted
claim of the '616 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining the
Fraser patent with any one or more other references?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Globus. NO is a finding for Synthes.

a.

Claim 1:

YES

No /

Ifyou answered NO, skip to question D.2.below.
Ifyou answered YES, answer the following question:
b.
2.

Claim 13:

YES

NO

Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted
claim of the '207 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining the
Fraser patent with any one or more other references?
Please check YES or NO.
YES is afindingfor Globus. NO is a finding for Synthes.

a.

Claim 1:

YES

No V

Ifyou answered NO, skip to question D. 2. d. below.
Ifyou answered YES, answer all ofthe following questions:
b.

Claim 2:

YES

NO

c.

Claim 16:

YES

NO

d.

Claim 42:

YES

15

NO v

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 17052

3.

Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted
claim of the '076 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining the
Fraser patent with any one or more other references?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Globus. NO is a finding for Synthes.
Claim 1:

No /

YES

Ifyou answered NO, skip to question E.l.below.
Ifyou answered YES, answer the following question:
Claim 11:

E.

YES

NO

Obviousness in View of

U.S. Patent No. 6,972,019 ("The Michelson '019 Patent")
1.

Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted
claim of the '616 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining the
Michelson '019 patent with any one or more other references?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Globus. NO is afindingfor Synthes.
a.

Claim 1:

YES

Ifyou answered NO, skip to question E.2. below.
Ifyou answered YES, answer the following question:
b.
2.

Claim 13:

YES

NO

Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted
claim of the '207 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining the
Michelson '019 patent with any one or more other references?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is afindingfor Globus. NO is a finding for Synthes.
a.

Claim 1:

YES

NO V

Ifyou answered NO, skip to question E.2.d below.
Ifyou answered YES, answer all of the following questions:
b.

Claim 2:

YES

NO

c.

Claim 16:

YES

NO

d.

Claim 42:

YES

NO

16

v"'

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 17053

3.

Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted
claim of the '076 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining the
Michelson '019 patent with any one or more other references?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Globus. NO is a finding for Synthes.
a.

Claim 1:

YES

No /

Ifyou answered NO, skip to question f.I. below.
Ifyou answered YES, answer following question:
b.

F.

Claim 11:

YES

NO

Obviousness in View of U.S. Patent No. 5,397,364 ("The Kozak Patent")

1.

Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted
claim of the '616 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining the
Kozak patent with any one or more other references?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Globus. NO is afindingfor Synthes.
a.

Claim 1:

YES

NO /

Ifyou answered NO, skip to question F.2. below.
Ifyou answered YES, answer the following question:
b.
2.

Claim 13:

YES

NO

Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted
claim of the '207 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining the
Kozak patent with any one or more other references?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is afindingfor Globus. NO is a finding for Synthes.
a.

Claim 1:

YES

No L

Ifyou answered NO, skip to question F.2.d. below.
Ifyou answered YES, answer all of the following questions:
b.

Claim 2:

YES

NO

c.

Claim 16:

YES

NO

d.

Claim 42:

YES

NO V

17

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 17054

3.

Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted
claim of the '076 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining the
Kozak patent with any one or more other references?

Please check YES or NO.
YES is a finding for Globus. NO is a finding for Synthes.
a.

Claim 1:

YES

Ifyou answered NO, skip to Section Ill below.
Ifyou answered YES, answer the following question:
b.

Claim 11 :

YES

18

NO

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 329-1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 17055

III.

DAMAGES

Complete this Section ifyou answered "YES" for any claim in Section I and you did not
answer "YES " for that same claim in Section II.
1.

For infringing sales made by Globus, what percentage royalty is necessary
to adequately compensate Synthes for Globus' infringement?

/~

2.

%

What is the dollar amount of sales by Globus to which the percentage
royalty should apply to calculate Synthes' damages?

You have now reached the end of the verdict form and should review it to ensure it
accurately reflects your unanimous determinations. The Foreperson should then sign and date
the verdict form in the spaces below and all other jurors must then sign the verdict form in the
spaces below. Then, notify the marshal that you have reached a verdict.
The Foreperson should retain possession of the verdict form and bring it when the jury is
brought back into the courtroom.

'2013

By:

Foreperson

L'

I

U.JUJ

21

EXHIBIT C

Case 1:06-cv-00476-GMS Document 240 Filed 11/17/08 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 3370

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAW ARE

LINEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

c.A. No.

06-476 GMS

JUDGMENT
This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the
jury rendered its verdict on July 1,2008. The verdict was accompanied by a verdict form (D.l.
227), a copy of which is attached hereto. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered in
favor of the plaintiff, LINEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and against the defendant,
MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., that MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.
infringes Claims 1,2,34,41, and 55 of U.S. Patent No. 5,481,178 ('178 Patent), AND that
MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., infringes Claims 1,2,3, and 34 of U.S. Patent No.
6,580,258 ('258 Patent), AND that the' 178 and '258

Dated: November /1 ,2008

1 Certain claims remain pending before the court. This judgment is not a final judgment
as to all claims, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), but serves to trigger the 10-day limitations
period under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b).

Case 1:06-cv-00476-GMS Document 240-1 Filed 11/17/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3371

Case 1:06-cv-00476-GMS Document 240-1 Filed 11/17/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3372

EXHIBIT D

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

JUDGMENT

For reasons stated in the jury verdict of March 20, 2014:
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered on behalf of
defendant Google Inc. as to no infringement of claim 1 or 22 of the U.S. Patent No. 6,981,040
(“‘040 patent”).
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered on behalf of
defendant Google Inc. as to no infringement of claims 1, 3, 7, or 21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,685,276
(“‘276 patent”).

01980.51575/5830935.2

-1-

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered on behalf of
defendant Google Inc. that claim 1 of the ‘040 patent and claim 1 of the ‘276 patent are invalid
because they are anticipated and obvious.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered on behalf of
defendant Google Inc. that claim 22 of the ‘040 patent, and claims 3, 7, and 21 of the ‘276 patent
are invalid because they are obvious.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered on behalf of
defendant Google Inc. that Yochai Konig breached his employment agreement with SRI.
Therefore, PUM takes nothing by way of its patent infringement claims, and those claims
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.