Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 1 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-02245-JD
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`
`
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-02245-JD
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`
`
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`
`When answering the following questions and filling out this Verdict Form, please follow the
`
`directions provided throughout the form. Your answer to each question must be unanimous. Some of the
`
`questions contain legal terms that are defined and explained in detail in the Jury Instructions. Please refer
`
`to the Jury Instructions if you are unsure about the meaning or usage of any legal term that appears in the
`
`questions below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 3 of 33
`
`
`
`
`We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them under
`
`the instructions of this court as our verdict in this case:
`
`FINDINGS ON INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS
`
`(The questions about infringement should be answered regardless of your findings with respect to the
`
`validity or invalidity of the patent.)
`
`STIPULATED VERDICT QUESTIONS RE DIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Direct Infringement – ’373 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Has Firstface proven that it is more likely than not that Apple directly and literally infringed any
`
`asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373 (the ’373 Patent)? Please check either “Yes” (for Firstface)
`
`or “No” (for Apple).
`
`
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`If your answer to question 1 is “yes,” go to question 3. If your answer to question 1 is “no,” go to
`
`question 2.
`
`
`
`Direct Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents– ’373 Patent
`
`2.
`
`Has Firstface proven that it is more likely than not that Apple practices accused methods that
`
`include elements that are identical or equivalent to every requirement of any asserted claim of the ’373
`
`Patent? In other words, for any requirement that is not literally found in the accused methods, do the
`
`accused methods have an equivalent element to that requirement? Please check either “Yes” (for
`
`Firstface) or “No” (for Apple).
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 4 of 33
`
`
`
`
`Direct Infringement – ’419 Patent
`
`3.
`
`Has Firstface proven that it is more likely than not that Apple directly and literally infringed any
`
`asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419 (the ’419 Patent)? Please check either “Yes” (for Firstface)
`
`or “No” (for Apple).
`
`
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`If your answer to question 3 is “yes,” go to question 5. If your answer to question 3 is “no,” go to
`
`question 4.
`
`
`
`Direct Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents– ’419 Patent
`
`4.
`
`Has Firstface proven that it is more likely than not that Apple practices accused methods that
`
`include elements that are identical or equivalent to every requirement of any asserted claim of the ’419
`
`Patent? In other words, for any requirement that is not literally found in the accused methods, do the
`
`accused methods have an equivalent element to that requirement? Please check either “Yes” (for
`
`Firstface) or “No” (for Apple).
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 5 of 33
`
`
`
`
`STIPULATED VERDICT QUESTIONS RE INDUCED INFRINGEMENT
`
`Inducing Infringement – ’373 Patent
`
`5.
`
`Has Firstface proven that it is more likely than not:
`
`(i) that users of the accused products (other than Apple) literally infringed any asserted claim of
`
`the ’373 Patent;
`
`(ii) that Apple took action that actually induced that infringement; and
`
`(iii) that Apple was aware of the patent and knew that its actions would encourage infringement
`
`of the patent, or alternatively that it was willfully blind as to whether its actions would encourage
`
`infringement of the patent?
`
`
`
`Please check either “Yes” (for Firstface) or “No” (for Apple).
`
`
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`If your answer to question 5 is “yes,” go to question 7. If your answer to question 5 is “no,” go to
`
`question 6.
`
`
`
`Inducing Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents– ’373 Patent
`
`
`
`6.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Has Firstface proven that it is more likely than not:
`
`(i) that users of the accused products (other than Apple) infringed any asserted claim of the ’373
`
`Patent under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`(ii) that Apple took action that actually induced that infringement; and
`
`(iii) that Apple was aware of the patent and knew that its actions would encourage infringement
`
`of the patent, or alternatively that it was willfully blind as to whether its actions would encourage
`
`infringement of the patent?
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`
`Please check either “Yes” (for Firstface) or “No” (for Apple).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`
`Inducing Infringement – ’419 Patent
`
`7.
`
`Has Firstface proven that it is more likely than not:
`
`(i) that users of the accused products (other than Apple) literally infringed any asserted claim of
`
`the ’419 Patent;
`
`(ii) that Apple took action that actually induced that infringement; and
`
`(iii) that Apple was aware of the patent and knew that its actions would encourage infringement
`
`of the patent, or alternatively that it was willfully blind as to whether its actions would encourage
`
`infringement of the patent?
`
`
`
`Please check either “Yes” (for Firstface) or “No” (for Apple).
`
`
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`If your answer to question 7 is “yes,” go to question 9. If your answer to question 7 is “no,” go to
`
`question 8.
`
`
`
`Inducing Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents– ’419 Patent
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Has Firstface proven that it is more likely than not:
`
`(i) that users of the accused products (other than Apple) infringed any asserted claim of the ’419
`
`Patent under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`(ii) that Apple took action that actually induced that infringement; and
`
`(iii) that Apple was aware of the patent and knew that its actions would encourage infringement
`
`of the patent, or alternatively that it was willfully blind as to whether its actions would encourage
`
`infringement of the patent?
`
`
`
`Please check either “Yes” (for Firstface) or “No” (for Apple).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 8 of 33
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`No
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C0OaNIDBDWnBRWDNO
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`10
`
`11
`11
`
`12
`12
`
`13
`13
`
`14
`14
`
`15
`15
`
`16
`16
`
`17
`17
`
`18
`18
`
`19
`19
`
`20
`20
`
`21
`21
`
`22
`22
`
`23
`23
`
`24
`24
`
`25
`25
`
`26
`26
`
`27
`27
`
`28
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`
`FINDINGS ON INVALIDITY DEFENSES
`
`(The questions about invalidity should be answered regardless of your findings with respect to the
`
`infringement or noninfringement of the patent.)
`
`Anticipation
`
`DISPUTED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 9 RE ANTICIPATION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF
`
`’373 PATENT OFFERED BY FIRSTFACE
`
`9.
`
`Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that all the asserted claims of the ’373 Patent were
`
`anticipated, or, in other words, not new? Please check either “Yes” (for Apple) or “No” (for Firstface).
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DISPUTED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 9 RE ANTICIPATION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF
`
`’373 PATENT OFFERED BY APPLE
`
`9.
`
`Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that the asserted claims of the ’373 Patent were
`
`anticipated, or, in other words, not new? Please check either “Yes” (for Apple) or “No” (for Firstface).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`
`FIRSTFACE’S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 9
`
`RE ANTICIPATION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’373 PATENT
`
`The Court should include the word “all” before “the asserted claims” to make clear to the jury that
`
`it can only answer “Yes” if it finds all asserted claims invalid instead of any single asserted claim.
`
`Omitting the word “all” makes the question ambiguous and would allow Apple to suggest to the jury that
`
`finding any asserted claim invalid is enough for the jury to answer “Yes.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 9 RE
`
`ANTICIPATION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’373 PATENT
`
`Firstface’s addition of the word “all” before asserted claims is redundant, because the question
`
`already indicates that the issue is whether “the asserted claims” were anticipated. Firstface’s addition
`
`would prejudice Apple by confusing the jury into thinking that there is a heightened requirement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`
`DISPUTED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 10 RE ANTICIPATION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF
`
`’419 PATENT OFFERED BY FIRSTFACE
`
`10.
`
`Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that all the asserted claims of the ’419 Patent were
`
`anticipated, or, in other words, not new? Please check either “Yes” (for Apple) or “No” (for Firstface).
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`
`
`
`
`DISPUTED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 10 RE ANTICIPATION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF
`
`’419 PATENT OFFERED BY APPLE
`
`10.
`
`Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that the asserted claims of the ’419 Patent were
`
`anticipated, or, in other words, not new? Please check either “Yes” (for Apple) or “No” (for Firstface).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`
`FIRSTFACE’S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 10
`
`RE ANTICIPATION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’419 PATENT
`
`The Court should include the word “all” before “the asserted claims” to make clear to the jury that
`
`it can only answer “Yes” if it finds all asserted claims invalid instead of any single asserted claim.
`
`Omitting the word “all” makes the question ambiguous and would allow Apple to suggest to the jury that
`
`finding any asserted claim invalid is enough for the jury to answer “Yes.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 14 of 33
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 10 RE
`
`ANTICIPATION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’419 PATENT
`
`Firstface’s addition of the word “all” before asserted claims is redundant, because the question
`
`already indicates that the issue is whether “the asserted claims” were anticipated. Firstface’s addition
`
`would prejudice Apple by confusing the jury into thinking that there is a heightened requirement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 15 of 33
`
`
`
`
`Obviousness
`
`DISPUTED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 11 RE OBVIOUSNESS OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF
`
`’373 PATENT OFFERED BY FIRSTFACE
`
`11.
`
`Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that all the asserted claims of the ’373 Patent would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the date of invention for the asserted
`
`claims of the ’373 Patent? Please check either “Yes” (for Apple) or “No” (for Firstface).
`
`
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`DISPUTED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 11 RE OBVIOUSNESS OF ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`OF’373 PATENT OFFERED BY APPLE
`
`11.
`
`Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that the asserted claims of the ’373 Patent would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the date of invention for the asserted claims of
`
`the ’373 Patent? Please check either “Yes” (for Apple) or “No” (for Firstface).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 16 of 33
`
`
`
`
`FIRSTFACE’S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 11
`
`RE OBVIOUSNESS OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’373 PATENT
`
`The Court should include the word “all” before “the asserted claims” to make clear to the jury that
`
`it can only answer “Yes” if it finds all asserted claims invalid instead of any single asserted claim.
`
`Omitting the word “all” makes the question ambiguous and would allow Apple to suggest to the jury that
`
`finding any asserted claim invalid is enough for the jury to answer “Yes.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 17 of 33
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 11 RE
`
`OBVIOUSNESS OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’373 PATENT
`
`Firstface’s addition of the word “all” before asserted claims is redundant, because the question
`
`already indicates that the issue is whether “the asserted claims” would have been obvious. Firstface’s
`
`addition would prejudice Apple by confusing the jury into thinking that there is a heightened
`
`requirement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 18 of 33
`
`
`
`
`DISPUTED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 12 RE OBVIOUSNESS OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF
`
`’419 PATENT OFFERED BY FIRSTFACE
`
`12.
`
`Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that all the asserted claims of the ’419 Patent would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the date of invention for the asserted
`
`claims of the ’419 Patent? Please check either “Yes” (for Apple) or “No” (for Firstface).
`
`
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`DISPUTED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 12 RE OBVIOUSNESS OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF
`
`’419 PATENT OFFERED BY APPLE
`
`12.
`
`Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that the asserted claims of the ’419 Patent would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the date of invention for the asserted claims of
`
`the ’419 Patent? Please check either “Yes” (for Apple) or “No” (for Firstface).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 19 of 33
`
`
`
`
`FIRSTFACE’S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 12
`
`RE OBVIOUSNESS OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’419 PATENT
`
`The Court should include the word “all” before “the asserted claims” to make clear to the jury that
`
`it can only answer “Yes” if it finds all asserted claims invalid instead of any single asserted claim.
`
`Omitting the word “all” makes the question ambiguous and would allow Apple to suggest to the jury that
`
`finding any asserted claim invalid is enough for the jury to answer “Yes.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 20 of 33
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 12 RE
`
`OBVIOUSNESS OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’419 PATENT
`
`Firstface’s addition of the word “all” before asserted claims is redundant, because the question
`
`already indicates that the issue is whether “the asserted claims” would have been obvious. Firstface’s
`
`addition would prejudice Apple by confusing the jury into thinking that there is a heightened
`
`requirement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 21 of 33
`
`
`
`
`Written Description
`
`DISPUTED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 13 RE LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF
`
`ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’373 PATENT OFFERED BY FIRSTFACE
`
`13.
`
`Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that the specification of the ’373 Patent does not
`
`contain an adequate written description of the inventions claimed in all the asserted claims of the ’373
`
`Patent? Please check either “Yes” (for Apple) or “No” (for Firstface).
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DISPUTED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 13 RE LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF
`
`ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’373 PATENT OFFERED BY APPLE
`
`13.
`
`Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that the specification of the ’373 Patent does not
`
`contain an adequate written description of the inventions claimed in the asserted claims of the ’373
`
`Patent? Please check either “Yes” (for Apple) or “No” (for Firstface).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 22 of 33
`
`
`
`
`FIRSTFACE’S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 13
`
`RE LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’373 PATENT
`
`The Court should include the word “all” before “the asserted claims” to make clear to the jury that
`
`it can only answer “Yes” if it finds all asserted claims invalid instead of any single asserted claim.
`
`Omitting the word “all” makes the question ambiguous and would allow Apple to suggest to the jury that
`
`finding any asserted claim invalid is enough for the jury to answer “Yes.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 23 of 33
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 13 RE
`
`LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’373 PATENT
`
`Firstface’s addition of the word “all” before asserted claims is redundant, because the question
`
`already indicates that the issue is whether there is an adequate description for “the asserted claims.”
`
`Firstface’s addition would prejudice Apple by confusing the jury into thinking that there is a heightened
`
`requirement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 24 of 33
`
`
`
`
`DISPUTED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 14 RE LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF
`
`ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’419 PATENT OFFERED BY FIRSTFACE
`
`14.
`
`Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that the specification of the ’419 Patent does not
`
`contain an adequate written description of the inventions claimed in all the asserted claims of the ’419
`
`Patent? Please check either “Yes” (for Apple) or “No” (for Firstface).
`
`
`
`DISPUTED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 14 RE LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF
`
`ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’419 PATENT OFFERED BY APPLE
`
`14.
`
`Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that the specification of the ’419 Patent does not
`
`contain an adequate written description of the inventions claimed in the asserted claims of the ’419
`
`Patent? Please check either “Yes” (for Apple) or “No” (for Firstface).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 25 of 33
`
`
`
`
`FIRSTFACE’S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 14
`
`RE LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’419 PATENT
`
`The Court should include the word “all” before “the asserted claims” to make clear to the jury that
`
`it can only answer “Yes” if it finds all asserted claims invalid instead of any single asserted claim.
`
`Omitting the word “all” makes the question ambiguous and would allow Apple to suggest to the jury that
`
`finding any asserted claim invalid is enough for the jury to answer “Yes.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 26 of 33
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 14 RE
`
`LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’419 PATENT
`
`Firstface’s addition of the word “all” before asserted claims is redundant, because the question
`
`already indicates that the issue is whether there is an adequate description for “the asserted claims.”
`
`Firstface’s addition would prejudice Apple by confusing the jury into thinking that there is a heightened
`
`requirement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 27 of 33
`
`
`
`
`Enablement
`
`DISPUTED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 15 RE LACK OF ENABLEMENT OF ASSERTED
`
`CLAIMS OF ’373 PATENT OFFERED BY FIRSTFACE
`
`15.
`
`Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that the specification of the ’373 Patent does not
`
`contain a description of the invention of each asserted claim that is sufficiently full and clear to enable
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the field to make and use the invention? Please check either “Yes” (for
`
`Apple) or “No” (for Firstface).
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DISPUTED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 13 RE LACK OF ENABLEMENT OF ASSERTED
`
`CLAIMS OF ’373 PATENT OFFERED BY APPLE
`
`15.
`
`Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that the specification of the ’373 Patent does not
`
`contain a description of the inventions claimed in the asserted claims of the ’373 patent that is sufficiently
`
`full and clear to enable persons of ordinary skill in the field to make and use the invention? Please check
`
`either “Yes” (for Apple) or “No” (for Firstface).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 28 of 33
`
`
`
`
`FIRSTFACE’S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 15
`
`RE LACK OF ENABLEMENT OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’373 PATENT
`
`
`
`As an initial matter, Firstface contends that Apple should be barred from raising enablement
`
`because Apple raised an enablement defense for the first time after the close of discovery and service of
`
`expert reports. This issue is argued in Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 236),
`
`Apple’s Opposition to Firstface’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 257), and Firstface’s
`
`Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 264).
`
`To the extent the Court allows Apple to pursue its defense of non-enablement, the Court should
`
`include the word “each” before “asserted claim” to make clear to the jury that it can only answer “Yes” if
`
`it finds all asserted claims invalid instead of any single asserted claim. Omitting the word “each” makes
`
`the question ambiguous and would allow Apple to suggest to the jury that finding any asserted claim
`
`invalid is enough for the jury to answer “Yes.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 29 of 33
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 15 RE
`
`LACK OF ENABLEMENT OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’373 PATENT
`
`
`
`Apple should be allowed to have this question in the verdict form should the Court decide that
`
`Apple is permitted to pursue an enablement defense. See Dkt. Nos. 236, 257, 264.
`
`Firstface’s use of “each” is redundant, because Apple’s question already indicates that the issue is
`
`whether there is enablement for “the asserted claims.” Firstface’s addition would prejudice Apple by
`
`confusing the jury into thinking that there is a heightened requirement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 30 of 33
`
`
`
`
`DISPUTED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 16 LACK OF ENABLEMENT OF ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`OF ’419 PATENT OFFERED BY FIRSTFACE
`
`16.
`
`Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that the specification of the ’419 Patent does not
`
`contain a description of the invention of each asserted claim that is sufficiently full and clear to enable
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the field to make and use the invention? Please check either “Yes” (for
`
`Apple) or “No” (for Firstface).
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`
`
`DISPUTED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 16 LACK OF ENABLEMENT OF ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`OF ’419 PATENT OFFERED BY APPLE
`
`
`
`16.
`
`Has Apple proven that it is highly probable that the specification of the ’419 Patent does not
`
`contain a description of the inventions claimed in the asserted claims of the ’419 patent that is sufficiently
`
`full and clear to enable persons of ordinary skill in the field to make and use the invention? Please check
`
`either “Yes” (for Apple) or “No” (for Firstface).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________ Yes
`
`________ No
`
`
`
`
`
`29
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 31 of 33
`
`
`
`
`FIRSTFACE’S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 16
`
`RE LACK OF ENABLEMENT OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’419 PATENT
`
`As an initial matter, Firstface contends that Apple should be barred from raising enablement
`
`because Apple raised an enablement defense for the first time after the close of discovery and service of
`
`expert reports. This issue is argued in Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 236),
`
`Apple’s Opposition to Firstface’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 257), and Firstface’s
`
`Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 264).
`
`To the extent the Court allows Apple to pursue its defense of non-enablement, the Court should
`
`include the word “each” before “asserted claim” to make clear to the jury that it can only answer “Yes” if
`
`it finds all asserted claims invalid instead of any single asserted claim. Omitting the word “each” makes
`
`the question ambiguous and would allow Apple to suggest to the jury that finding any asserted claim
`
`invalid is enough for the jury to answer “Yes.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 32 of 33
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 16 RE
`
`LACK OF ENABLEMENT OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF ’419 PATENT
`
`
`
`Apple should be allowed to have this question in the verdict form should the Court decide that
`
`Apple is permitted to pursue an enablement defense. See Dkt. Nos. 236, 257, 264.
`
`Firstface’s use of “each” is redundant, because Apple’s question already indicates that the issue is
`
`whether there is enablement for “the asserted claims.” Firstface’s addition would prejudice Apple by
`
`confusing the jury into thinking that there is a heightened requirement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`31
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 294 Filed 06/08/23 Page 33 of 33
`
`
`
`
`FINDINGS ON DAMAGES (IF APPLICABLE)
`
`STIPULATED VERDICT QUESTION NO. 17 FINDINGS ON DAMAGES
`
`Answer this question if at least one of the following is true:
`
`
`
`
`
`’373 Patent: You answered “Yes” to Questions 1, 2, 5, or 6 and you answered “No” to
`
`each of Questions 9, 11, 13, and 15.
`
`’419 Patent: You answered “Yes” to Questions 3, 4, 7, or 8 and you answered “No” to
`
`each of Questions 10, 12, 14, and 16.
`
`Otherwise, do not answer this question.
`
`
`
`15. What sum of money, if any, if paid now in cash, do you find that Firstface proved by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence would fairly and reasonably compensate Firstface for any infringement of
`
`the ’373 Patent and/or the ’419 Patent by Apple? (Answer in Dollars and Cents)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`$______________________________________________
`
`You have now reached the end of the verdict form and should review it to ensure it accurately
`
`reflects your unanimous determinations. The Presiding Juror should then sign and date the verdict form
`
`in the spaces below and notify the Courtroom Deputy that you have reached a verdict. The Presiding
`
`Juror should retain possession of the verdict form and bring it when the jury is brought back into the
`
`courtroom.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date:
`
`By:
`
`
`
`Presiding Juror
`
`32
`
`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
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
