Ultratec, Inc. et al v. Sorenson Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 530

DRAFT Verdict Form for Liability. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 9/28/2015. (AEB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ULTRATEC, INC. and CAPTEL, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
SPECIAL VERDICT
FORM – LIABILITY
[28 SEPTEMBER DRAFT]
14-cv-66-jdp
v.
SORENSON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and
CAPTIONCALL, LLC,
Defendants.

We, the jury, for our special verdict, do find as follows:

QUESTION NO. 1: Are the CapTel trials prior art?

A “yes” is a finding favorable to defendants and a “no” is a finding favorable to
plaintiffs.

Answer “yes” or “no”: _______________

If you answered “yes,” then you may consider the CapTel trials as prior art in your
consideration of the remaining questions. If you answered “no,” then you may not
consider the CapTel trials to be prior art for the remaining questions.

QUESTION NO. 2: Have defendants proven by clear and convincing evidence that
any of the following patent claims are invalid because they were obvious.

A “yes” is a finding for defendants and a “no” is a finding for plaintiffs.

Patent Claim
Claim 11 of the ’398 Patent
Claim 12 of the ’398 Patent
Claim 13 of the ’398 Patent

Proceed to question 3.

Yes

No

QUESTION NO. 3: Have defendants proven by clear and convincing evidence that
any of the following patent claims are invalid because the written description of the
’398 patent fails to describe the full scope of the claimed invention?

A “yes” is a finding for defendants and a “no” is a finding for plaintiffs.

Patent Claim
Claim 11 of the ’398 Patent
Claim 12 of the ’398 Patent
Claim 13 of the ’398 Patent

Proceed to question 4.

Yes

No

QUESTION NO. 4: Have defendants proven by clear and convincing evidence that
any of the following patent claims are invalid because they fail to enable a person of
ordinary skill in the field to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention?
A “yes” is a finding for defendants and a “no” is a finding for plaintiffs.

Patent Claim

Yes

No

Claim 11 of the ’398 Patent
Claim 12 of the ’398 Patent
Claim 13 of the ’398 Patent

__________________________________
Presiding Juror

Madison, Wisconsin
Dated this ___ day of October, 2015