throbber
Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 507 Filed 12/13/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 9858
`r--...~]~''{M
`I 0 J
`-
`~~.
`
`~_sl0c~©Ut~@
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS, LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Civ. No. 10-258-SLR
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`VERDICT SHEET
`
`Dated: December 11, 2012
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 507 Filed 12/13/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 9859
`
`We, the jury, unanimously find as follows:
`
`I. U.S. Patent No. 6,070,068 ("The '068 Patent")
`
`A. Direct Infringement
`
`1. Do you find that MobileMedia has proven, by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence, that each and every limitation of claim 23 and/or claim 24 of the '068 patent is
`
`found in the accused Apple iPhones (hereinafter, "Apple's iPhones")?
`
`Checking 'yes" below indicates a finding for MobileMedia.
`
`Checking "no" below indicates a finding for the Apple.
`
`Claim Verdict on direct
`infringement
`~if yes
`~yes
`
`0 no
`
`0 no
`
`23
`
`24
`
`B. Indirect Infringement - Inducing Infringement
`
`2. Do you find that MobileMedia has proven, by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence, that Apple has induced the infringement of claim 23 and/or claim 24 of the
`
`'068 patent?
`
`Checking "yes" below indicates a finding for MobileMedia.
`
`Checking "no" below indicates a finding for the Apple.
`
`Claim Verdict on inducement
`of infringement
`~no
`[1f no
`
`0 yes
`
`0 yes
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 507 Filed 12/13/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 9860
`
`C. Validity
`
`3. Do you find that Apple has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
`
`asserted claims of the '068 patent are invalid as being anticipated?
`
`Checking "no" below indicates a finding for the MobileMedia.
`
`Checking "yes" below indicates a finding for Apple.
`
`Claim No
`{VaHd)
`
`Yes
`(Invalid,
`anticipated)
`23 ~ D
`g'
`24
`D
`
`4. Do you find that Apple has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
`
`asserted claims of the '068 patent are invalid as being obvious?
`
`Checking "no" below indicates a finding for the MobileMedia.
`
`Checking "yes" below indicates a finding for Apple.
`
`Claim No
`{Valid)
`
`Yes
`{Invalid due to
`obviousness)
`23 ~ D
`rt(
`24
`D
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 507 Filed 12/13/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 9861
`
`11. U.S. Patent No. 6,253,075 ("The '075 Patent")
`
`A. Direct Infringement
`
`1. Do you find that MobileMedia has proven, by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence, that each and every limitation of claim 5, claim 6, and/or claim 10 of the '075
`
`patent is found in Apple's iPhones?
`
`Checking "yes" below indicates a finding for MobileMedia.
`
`Checking "no" below indicates a finding for the Apple.
`
`If you answer "no" with respect to claim 5, you must answer "no" with
`respect to dependent claim 6 for purposes of this question.
`
`Claim Verdict on direct
`infringement
`
`5
`
`6
`
`10
`
`0 no
`
`0 no
`
`0 no
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 507 Filed 12/13/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 9862
`
`B. Indirect Infringement - Inducing Infringement
`
`2. Do you find that MobileMedia has proven, by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence, that Apple has induced the infringement of claim 5 and/or claim 6 of the '075
`
`patent?
`
`Checking 'yes" below indicates a finding for MobileMedia.
`
`Checking "no" below indicates a finding for the Apple.
`
`If you answer "no" with respect to claim 5, you must answer "no" with
`respect to dependent claim 6 for purposes of this question.
`
`Claim Verdict on inducement
`of infringement
`
`5
`
`6
`
`0 yes
`
`0 yes
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 507 Filed 12/13/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 9863
`
`C. Validity
`
`3. Do you find that Apple has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
`
`asserted claims of the '075 patent are invalid as being obvious?
`
`Checking "no" below indicates a finding for the MobileMedia.
`
`Checking "yes" below indicates a finding for Apple.
`
`If you find that claim 5 is valid and not obvious, you must find that
`dependent claim 6 is also valid and not obvious for purposes of this
`question.
`
`Claim No
`(Valid)
`
`Yes
`(Invalid due to
`obviousness)
`5 ~ 0
`g-'
`6
`0
`[{('
`
`10
`
`0
`
`5
`
`

`

`-......
`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 507 Filed 12/13/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 9864
`
`Ill. U.S. Patent No. 6,427,078 ("The '078 Patent")
`
`A. Direct Infringement
`
`1. Do you find that MobileMedia has proven, by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence, that each and every limitation of claim 73 of the '078 patent is found in
`
`Apple's iPhones?
`
`Checking "yes" below indicates a finding for MobileMedia.
`
`Checking "no" below indicates a finding for the Apple.
`
`Claim Verdict on direct
`infringement
`
`73
`
`Vyes
`
`D no
`
`B. Validity
`
`2. Do you find that Apple has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that
`
`claim 73 of the '078 patent is invalid as being anticipated?
`
`Checking "no" below indicates a finding for the MobileMedia.
`
`Checking "yes" below indicates a finding for Apple.
`
`Claim No
`(Valid)
`
`Yes
`(Invalid,
`anticipated)
`73 ~ D
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 507 Filed 12/13/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 9865
`
`3. Do you find that Apple has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that
`
`claim 73 of the '078 patent is invalid as being obvious?
`
`Checking "no" below indicates a finding for the MobileMedia.
`
`Checking "yes" below indicates a finding for Apple.
`
`Claim No
`(Valid)
`
`Yes
`(Invalid due to
`obviousness)
`73 ~ D
`
`7
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket