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)

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