Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al

Filing 277

NOTICE by Microsoft Corp., Nintendo of America, Inc., Anascape, Ltd PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS (Cawley, Douglas)

Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al

Doc. 277

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION Anascape, Ltd., Plaintiff, v. Microsoft Corp., and Nintendo of America, Inc., Defendants. Civil Action No. 9:06-cv-158-RC

PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS The parties in the above referenced case jointly submit the following proposed jury verdict forms. Anascape, Ltd.'s ("Anascape") proposed jury verdict form appears first, and Microsoft Corp.'s and Nintendo of America, Inc.'s (collectively, "Defendants") appears second.

ANASCAPE'S PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORM: QUESTION NO. 1: (INFRINGEMENT) A. Do you find by a preponderance of evidence that Microsoft Corp. infringes, either

directly or indirectly, any of the following claims of United States Patent No. 6,906,700, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents? Answer "YES" or "NO" as to each claim. Claim 12 ___________ Claim 13 ___________ Claim 14 ___________ Claim 15 ___________ Claim 19 ___________ Claim 20 ___________
PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS
Dallas 254866v1

PAGE 1 OF 15

Dockets.Justia.com

Claim 22 ___________ Claim 23 ___________ Claim 32 ___________ Claim 33 ___________

B.

Do you find by a preponderance of evidence that Nintendo of America, Inc.

infringes, either directly or indirectly, any of the following claims of United States Patent No. 6,906,700, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents? Answer "YES" or "NO" as to each claim. Claim 14 ___________ Claim 16 ___________ Claim 17 ___________ Claim 18 ___________ Claim 19 ___________ Claim 20 ___________ Claim 22 ___________ Claim 23 ___________ Claim 32 ___________ Claim 33 ___________

If you have answered "YES" to any claim in Question No. 1, then answer Question No. 2. Otherwise, do not answer Question No. 2, but proceed to question No. 3.

PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS
Dallas 254866v1

PAGE 2 OF 15

QUESTION NO. 2: (WILLFULNESS) Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that such conduct as you have found in Question No. 1 was willful? Answer "YES" or "NO" as to each defendant:

Microsoft Corp.

_____________

Nintendo of America, Inc.

_____________

Proceed to Question No. 3.

PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS
Dallas 254866v1

PAGE 3 OF 15

QUESTION NO. 3: (INVALIDITY) Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims of United States Patent No. 6,906,700 are invalid? Answer "YES" or "NO" as to each claim. Claim 12 ___________ Claim 13 ___________ Claim 14 ___________ Claim 15 ___________ Claim 16 ___________ Claim 17 ___________ Claim 18 ___________ Claim 19 ___________ Claim 20 ___________ Claim 22 ___________ Claim 23 ___________ Claim 32 ___________ Claim 33 ___________ If you answered "YES" to any claim in Question No. 1 and "NO" as to that same claim in Question No. 3, then answer Question No. 4. Otherwise, do not answer Question No. 4.

PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS
Dallas 254866v1

PAGE 4 OF 15

QUESTION NO. 4: (DAMAGES) What sum of money would adequately compensate Anascape, Ltd. for the conduct you found to infringe from July 31, 2006 through today? This amount must not be less than a reasonable royalty. Answer in dollars and cents separately for each defendant.

Microsoft Corp.

Answer: $ _______________________

Nintendo of America, Inc.

Answer: $ _______________________

Date: ________________________

Initials of Foreperson: _______________

PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS
Dallas 254866v1

PAGE 5 OF 15

DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORM:

QUESTION NO. 1 (INFRINGEMENT): A. Do you find by a preponderance of evidence that Microsoft Corp. infringes the

`700 patent? Answer "YES" or "NO" as to each claim. Claim 12 ___________ Claim 13 ___________ Claim 14 ___________ Claim 15 ___________ Claim 19 ___________ Claim 20 ___________ Claim 22 ___________ Claim 23 ___________ Claim 32 ___________ Claim 33 ___________

B.

Do you find by a preponderance of evidence that Nintendo's Wii Remote

controller, connected to the Wii Nunchuk controller, infringes the `700 patent? Answer "YES" or "NO" as to each claim. Claim 19 _____

C.

Do you find by a preponderance of evidence that Nintendo's Wii Classic

controller, connected to the Wii Remote Controller, infringes the `700 patent? Answer "YES" or "NO" as to each claim. Claim 14 _____

PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS
Dallas 254866v1

PAGE 6 OF 15

Claim 19 _____ Claim 20 _____ Claim 22 _____ Claim 23 _____

D.

Do you find by a preponderance of evidence that Nintendo's GameCube

controller infringes the `700 patent? Answer "YES" or "NO" as to each claim. Claim 14 ___________ Claim 16 ___________ Claim 17 ___________ Claim 18 ___________ Claim 19 ___________ Claim 20 ___________ Claim 22 ___________ Claim 23 ___________ Claim 32 ___________ Claim 33 ___________

E.

Do you find by a preponderance of evidence that Nintendo's GameCube

WaveBird wireless controller infringes the `700 patent? Answer "YES" or "NO" as to each claim. Claim 14 ___________ Claim 16 ___________ Claim 17 ___________ Claim 18 ___________

PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS
Dallas 254866v1

PAGE 7 OF 15

Claim 19 ___________ Claim 20 ___________ Claim 22 ___________ Claim 23 ___________

QUESTION NO. 2 (EFFECTIVE FILING DATE): Do you find that Anascape has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the effective filing date of this claim is July 5, 1996, and not the actual filing date of November 16, 2000? Answer "Yes" or "No" as to each claim. Claim 12 _____ Claim 13 _____ Claim 14 _____ Claim 15 _____ Claim 16 _____ Claim 17 _____ Claim 18 _____ Claim 19 _____ Claim 20 _____ Claim 22 _____ Claim 23 _____ Claim 32 _____ Claim 33 _____

PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS
Dallas 254866v1

PAGE 8 OF 15

QUESTION NO 3 (ANTICIPATION): Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the claims are invalid because they were anticipated by prior art? Answer "Yes" or "No" as to each claim. Claim 12 _____ Claim 13 _____ Claim 14 _____ Claim 15 _____ Claim 16 _____ Claim 17 _____ Claim 18 _____ Claim 19 _____ Claim 20 _____ Claim 22 _____ Claim 23 _____ Claim 32 _____ Claim 33 _____

QUESTION NO. 4 (OBVIOUSNESS): Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the claims are invalid because they were obvious in view of the prior art? Answer "Yes" or "No" as to each claim. Claim 12 _____ Claim 13 _____ Claim 14 _____ Claim 15 _____

PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS
Dallas 254866v1

PAGE 9 OF 15

Claim 16 _____ Claim 17 _____ Claim 18 _____ Claim 19 _____ Claim 20 _____ Claim 22 _____ Claim 23 _____ Claim 32 _____ Claim 33 _____

QUESTION NO 5. (WRITTEN DESCRIPTION): Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the claims are invalid for failure to satisfy the written description requirement? Answer "Yes" or "No" as to each claim. Claim 12 _____ Claim 13 _____ Claim 14 _____ Claim 15 _____ Claim 16 _____ Claim 17 _____ Claim 18 _____ Claim 19 _____ Claim 20 _____ Claim 22 _____ Claim 23 _____ Claim 32 _____

PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS
Dallas 254866v1

PAGE 10 OF 15

Claim 33 _____

If you answered "YES" to any claim in Question No. 1 and "NO" as to that same claim in Question Nos. 3, 4 and 5, then answer Question Nos. 6 and 7. Otherwise, do not answer Question Nos 6 and 7.

QUESTION NO. 6 (WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT): Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that the conduct you have found infringes the `700 patent was willful? Answer "YES" or "NO" as to each defendant:

Microsoft Corp.

_____________

Nintendo of America Inc.

_____________

QUESTION NO. 7 (DAMAGES): A. If you found above that Microsoft has infringed at least one valid claim, what sum of money, if any, do you find is adequate to compensate Anascape for infringement? State your answer in format (1) OR format (2) (but not both), in dollars and cents: (1) of $__________________ OR A reasonable one-time lump sum payment for the life of the patent, in the amount

PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS
Dallas 254866v1

PAGE 11 OF 15

(2)

A per unit payment from the commencement of the lawsuit through today in the

total amount of: $__________________

B. If you found above that Nintendo has infringed at least one valid claim, what sum of money, if any, do you find is adequate to compensate Anascape for infringement? State your answer in format (1) OR format (2) (but not both), in dollars and cents: (1) of $__________________ OR (2) A per unit payment from the commencement of the lawsuit through today in the A reasonable one-time lump sum payment for the life of the patent, in the amount

total amount of: $__________________

Date: ________________________

Initials of Foreperson: _______________

PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS
Dallas 254866v1

PAGE 12 OF 15

DATED: April 18, 2008

PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH P.C. Robert M. Parker Texas State Bar No. 15498000 [e-mail] Robert Christopher Bunt Texas State Bar No. 00787165 [e-mail] Charles Ainsworth Texas State Bar No. 00783521 [e-mail] Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth P.C. 100 E. Ferguson Street, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: [phone] Telecopier: [phone]

McKOOL SMITH, P.C. By: /s/ Douglas A. Cawley Douglas A. Cawley Lead Attorney Texas State Bar No. 04035500 [e-mail] Theodore Stevenson, III Texas State Bar No. 19196650 [e-mail] Christopher T. Bovenkamp Texas State Bar No. 24006877 [e-mail] Anthony M. Garza Texas State Bar No. 24050644 [e-mail] Jason D. Cassady Texas State Bar No. 24045625 [e-mail] Steven Callahan Texas State Bar No. 24053122 [e-mail] McKool Smith, PC 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: [phone] Telecopier: [phone] Sam Baxter Texas State Bar No. 01938000 [e-mail] P.O. Box O 104 East Houston Street, Suite 300 Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: [phone] Telecopier: [phone]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ANASCAPE, LTD.
PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS
Dallas 254866v1

PAGE 13 OF 15

KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP By: /s/ Garth A. Winn (w/permission SB) J. Christopher Carraway (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] Joseph T. Jakubek (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] Stephen J. Joncus (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] Richard D. Mc Leod (Bar No. 24026836) [e-mail] Derrick W. Toddy (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] John D. Vandenberg (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: [phone] J. Thad Heartfield (Bar No. 09346800) [e-mail] LAW OFFICES OF J. THAD HEARTFIELD 2195 Dowlen Road Beaumont, Texas 77706 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 409-866-5789 Clayton E Dark Jr. (Bar No. 05384500) [e-mail] CLAYTON E DARK JR., LAW OFFICE 207 E Frank Ave # 100 Lufkin, TX 75901 Telephone: [phone]

WILMERHALE LLP By: /s/ James S. Blank (w/permission) Robert J. Gunther, Jr. (pro hac vice) [e-mail] 399 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 James S. Blank (pro hac vice) [e-mail] LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, NY 10022-4802 Robert W. Faris (pro hac vice) [e-mail] Joseph S. Presta (pro hac vice) [e-mail] NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C. 901 North Glebe Road, 11th Floor Arlington, VA 22203 Lawrence L. Germer [e-mail] Charles W. Goehringer, Jr. [e-mail] GERMER GERTZ, L.L.P. 550 Fannin, Suite 500 Beaumont, TX 77713 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC.

PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS
Dallas 254866v1

PAGE 14 OF 15

Stephen McGrath, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) MICROSOFT CORPORATION One Microsoft Way, Building 8 Redmond, Washington 98052-6399 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 425-706-7329 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MICROSOFT CORPORATION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a) on April 18, 2008. As such, this notice was served on all counsel who have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). /s/ Steven Callahan Steven Callahan

PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORMS
Dallas 254866v1

PAGE 15 OF 15