Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 1 of 42
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 2 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page1 of 41
`
`
`
`UNITEDD STATES DDISTRICT CCOURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NORTHERRN DISTRICCT OF CALIIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`TVV INTERACCTIVE DATTA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CORPORATIION,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`SOONY CORPPORATION,, et al.,
`
`Defendantss.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 110-cv-004755-JCS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINALL JURY INNSTRUCTIOONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Daated: March 225, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Josseph C. Sperro
`
`
`
`
`Unnited States MMagistrate JJudge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 3 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page2 of 41
`
`
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 1
`
`Duty of Jury
`
`Members of the Jury: Now that you have heard all of the evidence and the arguments of
`
`the attorneys, it is my duty to instruct you as to the law of the case. Each of you has received a
`
`copy of the Court’s Preliminary and Final Jury Instructions, which you may take with you to the
`
`jury room to consult during your deliberations. You must not infer from these instructions or from
`
`anything I may say or do as indicating that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your
`
`verdict should be. It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts
`
`you will apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you
`
`agree with it or not. And you must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions,
`
`prejudices, or sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on the evidence before
`
`you. You will recall that you took an oath to do so. In following my instructions, you must follow
`
`all of them and not single out some and ignore others; they are all important.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 4 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page3 of 41
`
`
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 2
`
`Burden of Proof − Preponderance of the Evidence
`
`When a party has the burden of proof on any claim or affirmative defense by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim or
`
`affirmative defense is more probably true than not true. You should base your decision on all of
`
`the evidence, regardless of which party presented it.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 5 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page4 of 41
`
`
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 3
`
`Burden of Proof − Clear and Convincing Evidence
`
`When a party has the burden of proving any claim or defense by clear and convincing
`
`evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim or defense is highly
`
`probable. This is a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence. You
`
`should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which party presented it.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 6 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page5 of 41
`
`
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 4
`
`What is Evidence
`
`The evidence you are to consider in deciding what the facts are consists of:
`
`1. the sworn testimony of any witness;
`
`2. the exhibits which are received into evidence; and
`
`3. any facts to which the lawyers have agreed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 7 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page6 of 41
`
`
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 5
`
`What is Not Evidence
`
`In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony and exhibits received into
`
`evidence. Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the
`
`facts are. I will list them for you:
`(1) Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses.
`
`What they have said in their opening statements, closing arguments, and at other times
`
`is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts as you
`
`remember them differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, your memory of
`
`them controls.
`(2) Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to their
`
`clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of evidence.
`
`You should not be influenced by the objection or by the court’s ruling on it.
`(3) Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that you have been instructed to
`
`disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered. In addition sometimes
`
`testimony and exhibits are received only for a limited purpose; when I have given a
`
`limiting instruction, you must follow it.
`(4) Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not in session is not
`
`evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at the trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 8 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page7 of 41
`
`
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 6
`
`Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
`
`Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as
`
`testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial
`
`evidence is proof of one or more facts from which you could find another fact. You should
`
`consider both kinds of evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to
`
`either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any
`
`evidence.
`
`By way of example, if you wake up in the morning and see that the sidewalk is wet, you
`
`may find from that fact that it rained during the night. However, other evidence, such as a turned
`
`on garden hose, may provide a different explanation for the presence of water on the sidewalk.
`
`Therefore, before you decide that a fact has been proved by circumstantial evidence, you must
`
`consider all the evidence in the light of reason, experience, and common sense.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 9 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page8 of 41
`
`
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 7
`
`Credibility of Witnesses
`
`In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to believe and
`
`which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of it, or none
`
`of it. Proof of a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify about it.
`
`In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account:
`
`(1) the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified to;
`
`(2) the witness’s memory;
`
`(3) the witness’s manner while testifying;
`
`(4) the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case and any bias or prejudice;
`
`(5) whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s testimony;
`
`(6) the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony in light of all the evidence; and
`
`(7) any other factors that bear on believability.
`
`The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of
`
`witnesses who testify about it.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 10 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page9 of 41
`
`
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 8
`
`Expert Opinion
`
`Some witnesses, because of education or experience, are permitted to state opinions and
`
`the reasons for those opinions. Opinion testimony should be judged just like any other testimony.
`
`You may accept it or reject it, and give it as much weight as you think it deserves, considering the
`
`witness’s education and experience, the reasons given for the opinion, and all the other evidence in
`
`the case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 11 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page10 of 41
`
`
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 9
`
`Charts and Summaries Not Received in Evidence
`
`Certain charts and summaries not received in evidence have been shown to you in order to
`
`help explain the contents of books, records, documents, or other evidence in the case. They are
`
`not themselves evidence or proof of any facts. If they do not correctly reflect the facts or figures
`
`shown by the evidence in the case, you should disregard these charts and summaries and
`
`determine the facts from the underlying evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 12 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page11 of 41
`
`
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 10
`
`Charts and Summaries in Evidence
`
`Certain charts and summaries have been received into evidence to illustrate information
`
`brought out in the trial. Charts and summaries are only as good as the underlying evidence that
`
`supports them. You should, therefore, give them only such weight as you think the underlying
`
`evidence deserves.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 13 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page12 of 41
`
`
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 11
`
`Summary of Contentions
`
`I will first give you a summary of each side’s contentions in this case. I will then tell you
`
`what each side must prove to win on each of its contentions. As I previously told you, TVI seeks
`
`money damages from Sony for allegedly infringing the ‘307, ‘863, ‘156 and ‘532 patents by
`
`making, importing, using, selling, offering to sell, supplying, and causing to be supplied, its DVD
`
`players, Blu-ray players and PlayStation3 consoles, which TVI argues are covered by claims 1, 9
`
`and 17 of the ‘532 Patent; claims 1, and 9 of the ‘863 Patent, claim 1 of the ‘156 Patent; and
`
`claims 1, 2, and 18 of the ‘307 Patent. These are the asserted claims of the ‘307, ‘863, ‘156 and
`
`‘532 patents. TVI has not asserted that claim 9 of the '863 Patent is infringed by Sony's DVD
`
`players. TVI also argues that Sony has actively induced infringement of claim 1 of the ‘156
`
`Patent; and claims 1, 2, and 18 of the ‘307 Patent and contributed to others’ infringement of claim
`
`1 of the ‘156 Patent; and claims 1, 2, and 18 of the ‘307 Patent. The products that are alleged to
`
`infringe are Sony’s DVD players, Blu-ray players, and PlayStation3 consoles. The parties have
`
`agreed that the Sony BDP-S550 Blu-ray player is representative of all accused DVD and Blu-ray
`
`players for purposes of the parties’ dispute over infringement/non-infringement. The BDP-S550
`
`Blu-ray player and PlayStation3 console are collectively referred to as the "Representative
`
`Products".
`
`Sony denies that it has infringed the asserted claims of the ‘532, ‘863, ‘156, and the ‘307
`
`Patents and argues that, in addition, all of these claims are invalid. Sony also denies that it has
`
`induced others to infringe or contributed to infringement of any claim of the ‘532 or ‘307 Patents.
`
`Your job is to decide whether any of the asserted claims of the ‘307, ‘863, ‘156 and ‘532
`
`patents have been infringed and whether any of the asserted claims of the ‘307, ‘863, ‘156 and
`
`‘532 patents are invalid. If you decide that any claim of TVI’s patents has been infringed and is
`
`not invalid, you will then need to decide any money damages to be awarded to TVI to compensate
`
`it for the infringement. You will also need to make a finding as to whether the infringement was
`
`willful. If you decide that any infringement was willful, that decision should not affect any
`
`damage award you make. I will take willfulness into account later.
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 14 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page13 of 41
`
`
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 12
`
`Interpretation of Claims
`
`I have interpreted the meaning of some of the language in the patent claims involved in
`
`this case. You must accept those interpretations as correct. My interpretation of the language
`
`should not be taken as an indication that I have a view regarding the issues of infringement and
`
`invalidity. The decisions regarding infringement and invalidity are yours to make.
`
`The claim term “file” is a complete, identifiable collection of information, constituting a
`
`basic unit of storage that enables a computer to distinguish one set of information from another.
`
`The claim term “initialization file” is a file which, alone or in combination with other
`
`file(s), contains information or data used or referenced to startup or configure software and/or
`
`hardware and is not then used to perform a further process or used as a driver.
`
`The claim term “loading” means copying into memory.
`
`The claim term “means for automatically loading an initialization file” is a host device
`
`programmed and/or configured to perform the disclosed algorithm of checking for and using an
`
`initialization file during booting from either a removable storage media (such as floppy disk) or a
`
`permanent storage medium which is an integral part of the host device, and equivalents thereof.
`
`The claim term “first means for checking for a file of a first predetermined name” is a host
`
`device (e.g. computer) programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of using the first
`
`predetermined name to determine if a file with the name is presented in or accessible from the
`
`storage medium, and equivalents thereof.
`
`The claim term “second means for checking for a file of a second predetermined name” is
`
`a host device (e.g. computer) programmed and/or configured to perform the disclosed algorithm of
`
`using the second predetermined name to determine if a file with that name is present in or
`
`accessible from the storage medium, and equivalents thereof.
`
`The claim term “said file other than said initialization file having a predetermined name
`
`that is compatible with said initialization file” is a file having a predetermined name, which name
`
`is consistently used by the initialized host device to seek a file.
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 15 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page14 of 41
`
`
`
`The claim term “returning to said step of automatically enabling” means returning to a
`
`state in which the host device (e.g. computer) is prepared to process requests for attention to or
`
`from hardware and/or software.
`
`The claim term “without rebooting the [host] device” means without (1) resetting or
`
`restarting the [host] device or (2) reloading or restarting an operating system in the [host] device.
`
`All of the asserted claims have been interpreted to include a limitation of "without
`
`rebooting the host device."
`
`The claim term “means for detecting insertion of a storage media into a peripheral” is a
`
`host device (e.g. computer) programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of detecting insertion
`
`of a storage media through polling or use of an interrupt from a storage peripheral, and equivalents
`
`thereof.
`
`The claim term “detecting insertion of a storage media into a peripheral” is detecting
`
`insertion of a storage media into a peripheral.
`
`The claim term “means for checking … for a file other than said initialization file” is a host
`
`device (e.g. computer) programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of determining if a file is
`
`present in or accessible from the storage media, and equivalents thereof.
`
`The claim term “predetermined name” is any name which is determined ahead of time.
`
`The claim term “sequence of instructions to be executed” is two or more declarations or
`
`commands to be executed.
`
`The claim term “means for starting up said process” is a host device (e.g. computer)
`
`programmed to perform the disclosed algorithms of starting up a process by either executing a file
`
`of predetermined name which contains directions to start up a process or executing a new process
`
`which, in turn, executes directions in a file of predetermined name to start up a process, and
`
`equivalents thereof.
`
`The claim term “automatically” means without user input of a file name.
`
`The claim term “application” is a program designed to assist in the performance of a
`
`specific task, such as word processing, accounting, or inventory management.
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 16 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page15 of 41
`
`
`
`The claim term "host device" means any device which can display to the user associated
`
`electronic content encoded in remote and/or local storage media.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 17 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page16 of 41
`
`
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 13
`
`Burden of Proof
`
`I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in deciding whether TVI has proven
`
`that Sony has infringed one or more of the asserted claims of the ‘307, ‘863, ‘156 and ‘532
`
`patents. To prove infringement of any claim, TVI must persuade you that it is more likely than
`
`not that Sony has infringed that claim. You are to determine infringement based solely on whether
`
`the Representative Products infringe each of the asserted claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 18 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page17 of 41
`
`
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 14
`
`Direct Infringement
`
`A patent’s claims define what is covered by the patent. A product or method directly
`
`infringes a patent if it is covered by at least one claim of the patent. Deciding whether a claim has
`
`been directly infringed is a two-step process. The first step is to decide the meaning of the patent
`
`claim. I have already made this decision, and I have already instructed you as to the meaning of
`
`the asserted patent claims. The second step is to decide whether Sony has made, used, sold,
`
`offered for sale or imported within the United States a product or method covered by an asserted
`
`claim of TVI’s patents. You, the jury, make the decision in the second step.
`
`With one exception, you must consider each of the asserted claims of TVI’s patents
`
`individually, and decide whether Sony’s products infringe that claim. The one exception to
`
`considering claims individually concerns dependent claims. A dependent claim includes all of the
`
`requirements of a particular independent claim, plus additional requirements of its own. As a
`
`result, if you find that an independent claim is not infringed, you must find that its dependent
`
`claims are also not infringed. On the other hand, if you find that an independent claim has been
`
`infringed, you must still separately decide whether the additional requirements of its asserted
`
`dependent claims have also been infringed.
`
`Whether or not Sony knew its products infringed or even knew of the patent does not
`
`matter in determining direct infringement.
`
`The following instructions will provide more detail on direct infringement. You should
`
`note, however, that what are called “means-plus-function” requirements in a claim are subject to
`
`different rules for deciding direct infringement. These separate rules apply to claim 1 of the ’156
`
`Patent and claims 1 and 9 of the ’863 Patent. I will describe these separate rules shortly.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 19 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page18 of 41
`
`
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 15
`
`Infringement
`
`To decide whether Sony’s products infringe claim 1 of the '156 patent and claims 1 and 9
`
`of the '863 patent, you must compare Sony’s products with these patent claims and determine
`
`whether every requirement of the claim is included in Sony’s products. If so, Sony’s products
`
`infringe those claims. If, however, Sony’s products do not have every requirement in the patent
`
`claim, Sony’s products do not infringe that claim. You must decide literal infringement for each
`
`asserted claim separately.
`
`To decide whether Sony infringes claims 1, 2, and 18 of the '307 patent and claims 1, 9 and
`
`17 of the '532 patent, you must find that Sony performed every requirement of the claim in the
`
`United States. If so, Sony infringes that claim. If, however, Sony does not perform every
`
`requirement in the patent claim, Sony does not infringe that claim.
`
`The beginning portion, or preamble, of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit uses the
`
`word “comprising.” “Comprising” means “including” or “containing.” A claim that uses the
`
`word “comprising” or “comprises” is not limited to products or methods having only the elements
`
`or steps that are recited in the claim, but also covers products or processes that add additional
`
`elements or steps. A claim that uses "comprises" in the preamble is infringed as long as every
`
`requirement in the claim is present in Sony’s products. The fact that Sony’s products also include
`
`other parts or steps will not avoid infringement, as long as they have every requirement in the
`
`patent claim.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 20 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page19 of 41
`
`
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 16
`
`Means-Plus-Function Claims – Infringement
`
`I will now describe the separate rules that apply to “means-plus-function” requirements
`
`that are used in some claims. Claim 1 in the '156 patent and claims 1 and 9 in the '863 patent
`
`contain “means-plus-function” requirements. A means-plus-function requirement only covers the
`
`specific structure disclosed in a patent specification for performing the claimed function and the
`
`equivalents of those specific structures that perform the claimed function. A means-plus-function
`
`requirement does not cover all possible structures that could be used to perform the claimed
`
`function.
`
`As an example, the term “means for processing data” might be understood to encompass a
`
`variety of different ways of making a calculation, including not only a computer or calculator but a
`
`pencil and paper or even the human brain. But because the phrase is a means-plus-function
`
`requirement, we interpret that phrase not to cover every possible means for processing data, but
`
`instead to cover the actual means disclosed in the patent for processing data and other means that
`
`are equivalent to it.
`
`For purposes of this trial, I have interpreted each means-plus-function requirement for you
`
`and identified the structure in the patent specification that corresponds to these means-plus-
`
`function requirements.
`
`Specifically, I have determined that:
`1. "a host device programmed and/or configured to perform the disclosed algorithm of
`
`checking for and using an initialization file during booting from either a removable
`
`storage media (such as floppy disk) or a permanent storage medium which is an
`
`integral part of the host device, and equivalents thereof" is the structure that performs
`
`the "automatically loading an initialization file" function identified in the means-plus-
`
`function requirement of claim 1 of the '156 patent and claim 1 of the '863 patent.
`2. "a host device (e.g. computer) programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of
`
`detecting insertion of a storage media through polling or use of an interrupt from a
`
`storage peripheral, and equivalents thereof" is the structure that performs the "detecting
`19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 21 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page20 of 41
`
`
`
`insertion of a storage media into said peripheral" function identified in the means-plus-
`
`function requirement of claim 1 of the '156 patent and claims 1 and 9 of the '863 patent.
`3. "a host device (e.g. computer) programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of
`
`determining if a file is present in or accessible from the storage media, and equivalents
`
`thereof" is the structure that performs the "checking for a file other than said
`
`initialization file" function identified in the means-plus-function requirement of claim 1
`
`of the '156 patent.
`4. "a host device (e.g. computer) programmed to perform the disclosed algorithms of
`
`starting up a process by either executing a file of predetermined name which contains
`
`directions to start up a process or executing a new process which, in turn, executes
`
`directions in a file of predetermined name to start up a process, and equivalents
`
`thereof" is the structure that performs the "starting up said process" function identified
`
`in the means-plus-function requirement of claim 1 of the '156 patent and claims 1 and 9
`
`of the '863 patent.
`5. "a host device (e.g. computer) programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of
`
`determining if a file is present in or accessible from the storage media, and equivalents
`
`thereof" is the structure that performs the "checking said storage media for a file other
`
`than said initialization file" function identified in the means-plus-function requirement
`
`of claim 1 of the '863 patent.
`6. "a host device (e.g. computer) programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm of using
`
`the first predetermined name to determine if a file with the name is present in or
`
`accessible from the storage media, and equivalents thereof" is the structure that
`
`performs the "checking for a file of first predetermined name” function identified in the
`
`means-plus-function requirement of claim 9 of the '863 patent.
`7. "a host device (e.g. computer) programmed and/or configured to perform the disclosed
`
`algorithm of using the second predetermined name to determine if a file with that name
`
`is present in or accessible from the storage medium, and equivalents thereof" is the
`
`structure that performs the "checking for a file of a second predetermined name”
`20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 22 of 42
`Case3:10-cv-00475-JCS Document774 Filed03/25/13 Page21 of 41
`
`
`
`function identified in the means-plus-function requirement of claim 9 of the '863
`
`patent.
`
`In deciding if TVI has proven that Sony's products include a structure covered by a means-
`
`plus-function requirement, you must first decide whether the products have any structure that
`
`performs the function I just described to you. If not, the claim containing that means-plus-
`
`function requirement is not infringed.
`
`If you find that Sony’s accused products do have structure that performs the claimed
`
`function, you must then determine whether that structure is the same as or equivalent to the
`
`structure I have identified in the specification. If they are the same or equivalent, the means-plus-
`
`function requirement is satisfied by that structure of the accused products. If all the other
`
`requirements of the claim are satisfied, the accused products infringe the claim.
`
`In order to prove that a structure in the accused products is equivalent to the structure in
`
`claim 1 of the '156 patent or claim 1 or claim 9 of the '863 patent, TVI must show that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the field would have considered that the differences between the structures
`
`described in claim 1 of the '156 patent or claim 1 or claim 9 of the '863 patent and the structure in
`
`the accused products are not substantial. For the '156 patent, TVI must also show that the
`
`structure was available on the date the '156 patent was granted of August 18, 1998. For the '862
`
`patent, TVI must show that the structure was available on the date the '863 patent was granted of
`
`June 19, 2001.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 275-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 2