Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al
Filing
1245
Proposed Jury Instructions by Eolas Technologies Incorporated, The Regents of the University of California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Appendix A, # 4 Appendix B, # 5 Appendix C, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K)(McKool, Mike)
<![CDATA[
EXHIBIT F
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
vs.
§ Civil Action No. 6:09-cv-446-LED
§
Adobe Systems, Inc.., Amazon.com, Inc.,
§
Apple Inc., Argosy Publishing, Inc.,
Blockbuster Inc., CDW Corp., Citigroup Inc., §
§
eBay Inc., Frito-Lay, Inc., The Go Daddy
§
Group, Inc., Google Inc., J.C. Penney
Company, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., New §
§
Frontier Media, Inc., Office Depot, Inc.,
Playboy Enterprises International, Inc., Rent-A- §
§
Center, Inc., Staples, Inc., Sun Microsystems
Inc., Texas Instruments Inc., Yahoo! Inc., and §
§
YouTube, LLC,
§
§
Defendants.
§
Eolas Technologies, Inc.,
CDW’S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM1
1
CDW reserves the right to amend, supplement, or modify this Verdict Form as the case
proceeds.
In answering these questions, you are to follow the instructions I have given you in the
Charge of Court. Your answers must be unanimous.
INFRINGEMENT
1.
Has Eolas proven by a preponderance of the evidence that CDW has infringed any of its
asserted patent claims?
Yes ____ No ____
If you answered “Yes” to Question 1, please go to the next question. If you answered
“No” to Question 1, then skip Questions 2, 3, 4, and 5 and go to Question 6.
2.
With respect to CDW’s “Product Viewer” feature, has Eolas proven by a preponderance
of the evidence that CDW has directly infringed, induced the infringement of, or
contributorily infringed the following asserted patent claims?
Answer “Yes” or “No” for each asserted claim responding separately for each of
direct infringement, inducement to infringe, and contributory infringement.
’985 Patent
Direct
Infringement?
Inducement to
Infringe?
Contributory
Infringement?
Claim 1
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Claim 3
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Claim 16
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Claim 18
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Claim 20
Yes ____
No ____
n/a
n/a
Claim 22
Yes ____
No ____
n/a
n/a
1
3.
With respect to CDW’s “Web Collage” feature, has Eolas proven by a preponderance of
the evidence that CDW has directly infringed, induced the infringement of, or
contributorily infringed the following asserted patent claims?
Answer “Yes” or “No” for each asserted claim responding separately for each of
direct infringement, inducement to infringe, and contributory infringement.
’985 Patent
Direct
Infringement?
Inducement to
Infringe?
Contributory
Infringement?
Claim 1
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Claim 3
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Claim 16
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Claim 18
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Claim 20
Yes ____
No ____
n/a
n/a
Claim 22
Yes ____
No ____
n/a
n/a
4.
With respect to CDW’s “Auto Suggest” (also called “TypeAhead”) feature, has Eolas
proven by a preponderance of the evidence that CDW has directly infringed, induced the
infringement of, or contributorily infringed the following asserted patent claims?
Answer “Yes” or “No” for each asserted claim responding separately for each of
direct infringement, inducement to infringe, and contributory infringement.
’985 Patent
Direct
Infringement?
Inducement to
Infringe?
Contributory
Infringement?
Claim 36
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Claim 38
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Claim 40
Yes ____
No ____
n/a
n/a
Claim 42
Yes ____
No ____
n/a
n/a
2
5.
With respect to CDW’s “Video” feature, has Eolas proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that CDW has directly infringed, induced the infringement of, or contributorily
infringed the following asserted patent claims?
Answer “Yes” or “No” for each asserted claim responding separately for each of
direct infringement, inducement to infringe, and contributory infringement.
’906 Patent
Direct
Infringement?
Inducement to
Infringe?
Contributory
Infringement?
Claim 1
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Claim 6
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
’985 Patent
Direct
Infringement?
Inducement to
Infringe?
Contributory
Infringement?
Claim 1
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Claim 3
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Claim 16
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Claim 18
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Yes ____
No ____
Claim 20
Yes ____
No ____
n/a
n/a
Claim 22
Yes ____
No ____
n/a
n/a
3
INVALIDITY
6.
For each asserted claim, did Defendants prove by clear and convincing evidence that the
claim is invalid?
Answer “Yes” or “No” to each question below. Your answer need not be the
same for each question, but you may find that a claim is invalid on any or all of
these bases. Answer all questions for all claims regardless of whether you have
found those claims were infringed.
’906 Patent
Anticipation?
Obviousness?
Written description?
Anticipation?
Obviousness?
Written description?
Claim 1
Claim 6
’985 Patent
Claim 1
Claim 3
Claim 16
Claim 18
Claim 20
Claim 22
Claim 36
Claim 38
Claim 40
Claim 42
4
CONTRACTUAL AND LICENSE DEFENSES
7.
Did Defendant CDW prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiffs’ covenant
not to sue Microsoft customers applies to CDW’s conduct at issue in this case?
Yes ____ No ____
8.
Did Defendant CDW prove by a preponderance of the evidence that its conduct at issue
in this case is authorized under an implied license?
Yes ____ No ____
9.
Did Defendant CDW prove by a preponderance of the evidence that its conduct at issue
in this case is authorized under the doctrine of patent exhaustion?
Yes ____ No ____
INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
10.
Did Defendants prove by clear and convincing evidence that:
a) Anyone involved in the prosecution of the ’906 and ’985 patents withheld
material prior art from the Patent and Trademark Office?
Yes ____ No ____
b) Any withholding of material prior art to the ’906 and ’985 patents from the Patent
and Trademark Office was done with intent to deceive?
Yes ____ No ____
5
DAMAGES
ANSWER THIS QUESTION ONLY FOR PATENT CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST
CDW THAT YOU FOUND INFRINGED AND NOT INVALID. IF YOU FOUND NO
PATENT CLAIMS INFRINGED AND NOT INVALID, PLEASE DO NOT ANSWER
THIS QUESTION.
11.
What sum of money, if any, do you find from a preponderance of the evidence would
fairly and reasonably compensate Eolas for CDW’s infringement of the patent claims that
you have found were infringed and not invalid?
Amount of Damages Awarded
12.
$_________________________
Is this amount of damages a lump sum royalty?
Yes ____ No ____
Dated: February ____, 2012
____________________________
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?
