PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 478

NOTICE by PA Advisors, LLC (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Proposed Post-Trial Jury Instructions, #2 Exhibit B - Proposed Jury Instructions For Use As Pre-Trial Instructions to the Jury, #3 Exhibit C - Proposed Verdict Form)(Wiley, Elizabeth)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT C IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PA ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-480-RRR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED nXn TECH, LLC'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM nXn Tech, LLC (f/k/a PA Advisors, LLC) ("nXn") files this separate verdict form that merely includes the same questions included in the post-trial jury instructions. nXn reserves the right to revise, supplement, and otherwise amend this form as the case progresses through trial and through any additional pre-trial conferences with the Court concerning the specific matter of jury instructions. INFRINGEMENT Question No. 1A. Has nXn proven by, a preponderance of the evidence that Google directly infringes any claim of the Geller patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents? YES NO If you answered "Yes" to this question, you must answer Question 2A. Question No. 1B. Has nXn proven by, a preponderance of the evidence that Yahoo directly infringes any claim of the Geller patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents? YES NO If you answered "Yes" to this question, you must answer Question 2B. Question No. 2A. Please check all claims of the Geller patent that you find Google directly infringes, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, for each of the following Google Products. Google Search Claim 1 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 43 2 AUS:619242.2 AdWords Claim 1 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 43 Claim 45 Claim 47 AdSense for Search Claim 1 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 43 Claim 45 Claim 47 3 AUS:619242.2 Google's AdSense for Content Claim 45 Claim 47 Question No. 2B. Please check all claims of the Geller patent that you find Yahoo! directly infringes, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, for each of the following Accused Yahoo! Products. Yahoo! Sponsored Search Claim 1 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 43 Yahoo! Content Match Claim 45 Claim 47 Yahoo! Behavioral Targeting Claim 45 Claim 47 4 AUS:619242.2 Validity Question No. 3A. Have Yahoo proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that claim 1 or claim 45 of the Geller patent is invalid for failure to satisfy the written description requirement? YES NO If you answered "Yes" to this question, you must answer Question 4A. Question No. 3B. Has Google proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that claim 1 or claim 45 of the Geller patent is invalid for failure to satisfy the written description requirement? YES NO If you answered "Yes" to this question, you must answer Question 4B. Question No. 4A. Please check which claims, if any, of the Geller patent that you find Yahoo has proven by clear and convincing evidence is invalid for failure to satisfy the written description requirement Claim 1 Claim 45 Question No. 4B. Please check which claims, if any, of the Geller patent that you find Google has proven by clear and convincing evidence is invalid for failure to satisfy the written description requirement Claim 1 Claim 45 5 AUS:619242.2 Question No. 5A. Has Yahoo proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 or Claim 45 of the Geller patent is invalid for failure to satisfy the enablement requirement? YES NO If you answered "Yes" to this question, you must answer Question 6A. Question No. 5B. Has Google proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 or Claim 45 of the Geller patent is invalid for failure to satisfy the enablement requirement? YES NO If you answered "Yes" to this question, you must answer Question 6B. Question No. 6A. Please check which claims, if any, of the Geller patent that you find Yahoo has proven by clear and convincing evidence is invalid for failure to satisfy the enablement requirement Claim 1 Claim 45 Question No. 6B. Please check which claims, if any, of the Geller patent that you find Google has proven by clear and convincing evidence is invalid for failure to satisfy the enablement requirement Claim 1 Claim 45 6 AUS:619242.2 Question No. 7A. Has Google proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that any claim of the Geller patent is obvious in light of one piece of prior art, or a combination of prior art references? YES NO ____ If you answered "Yes" to this question, you must answer Question 8A. If you answered "No" to this question, skip to Question 9A (Damages: Reasonable Royalty). Question No. 7B. Has Yahoo proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that any claim of the Geller patent is invalid in light of one piece of prior art, or a combination of prior art references? YES NO If you answered "Yes" to this question, you must answer Question 8B. If you answered "No" to this question, skip to Question 9B (Damages: Reasonable Royalty). Question No. 8A. Please check those claims that you find that Google has proven by clear and convincing evidence are invalid because the claim was obvious in light of one piece of prior art, or a combination of prior art references? Claim 1 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 43 Claim 45 7 AUS:619242.2 Claim 47 Question No. 8B. Please check the those claims that you find that Yahoo has proven by clear and convincing evidence are invalid because the claim was obvious in light of one piece of prior art, or a combination of prior art references? Claim 1 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 43 Claim 45 Claim 47 Damages Question No. 9A If you find any claim of the Geller patent to be infringed by Google and valid, state the amount of damages in the form of a reasonable royalty you find nXn has proven by a preponderance of the evidence. = Question No. 9B $ If you find any claim of the Geller patent to be infringed by Yahoo and valid, state the amount of damages in the form of a reasonable royalty you find nXn has proven by a preponderance of the evidence. = $ ________________ Willful Infringement Has nXn proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Google has Question No. 10A. willfully infringed the Geller patent? YES 8 AUS:619242.2 NO Question No. 10B. Has nXn proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Yahoo has willfully infringed the Geller patent? YES NO 9 AUS:619242.2

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?