`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`
`
`))))))))))
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`
`INSTRUCTIONS:
`
`
`When answering the following questions and filling out this Verdict Form, please follow
`the directions provided throughout this Verdict 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 596 Filed 10/16/18 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 48686
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Question 1: Did Acceleration Bay prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Activision’s
`products as identified below literally infringe the identified claim of the Asserted
`Patents?
`
`
`
`
`Destiny:
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” for each claim. For each claim you did not find literally
`infringed, answer Question 2.
`
`‘147 Patent
`
`Claim 1 _____
`
`Claim 11 _____
`
`Claim 15 _____
`
`Claim 16 _____
`
`‘069 Patent
`
`Claim 1 _____
`
`Claim 11 _____
`
`
`
`
`World of Warcraft:
`
`
`‘344 Patent
`
`Claim 12 _____
`
`Claim 13 _____
`
`Claim 14 _____
`
`Claim 15 _____
`
`‘966 Patent
`
`Claim 12 _____
`
`Claim 13 _____
`
`‘497 Patent
`
`Claim 9 _____
`
`Claim 16 _____
`
`
`
`Call of Duty:
`
`
`‘147 Patent
`
`Claim 1 _____
`
`Claim 11 _____
`
`Claim 15 _____
`
`Claim 16 _____
`
`‘069 Patent
`
`Claim 1 _____
`
`Claim 11 _____
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 596 Filed 10/16/18 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 48687
`
`
`
`Question 2: For any patent claim you did not find Activision literally infringed in Question 1,
`did Acceleration Bay prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Activision’s
`products as identified below infringe the identified claim under the doctrine of
`equivalents?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” for each claim. If you answered “Yes” to at least one
`patent claim in Question 1 or 2, answer Question 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`Destiny:
`
`
`‘147 Patent
`
`Claim 1 _____
`
`Claim 11 _____
`
`Claim 15 _____
`
`Claim 16 _____
`
`‘069 Patent
`
`Claim 1 _____
`
`Claim 11 _____
`
`
`World of Warcraft:
`
`
`
`Call of Duty:
`
`
`‘344 Patent
`
`Claim 12 _____
`
`Claim 13 _____
`
`Claim 14 _____
`
`Claim 15 _____
`
`‘966 Patent
`
`Claim 12 _____
`
`Claim 13 _____
`
`‘497 Patent
`
`Claim 9 _____
`
`Claim 16 _____
`
`‘497 Patent
`
`Claim 9 _____
`
`Claim 16 _____
`
`‘147 Patent
`
`Claim 1 _____
`
`Claim 11 _____
`
`Claim 15 _____
`
`Claim 16 _____
`
`‘069 Patent
`
`Claim 1 _____
`
`Claim 11 _____
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 596 Filed 10/16/18 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 48688
`
`
`
`Question 3: For only those Asserted Patents for which you found infringement of one or more
`claims in Question 1 or Question 2 above, has Acceleration Bay proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that Activision willfully infringed the patent?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Check “Yes” or “No.”
`
`YES _____
`
`NO _____
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 596 Filed 10/16/18 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 48689
`
`
`
`Question 4:
`If you found infringement in Question 1 or Question 2 above, did Activision
`prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the claims of the Asserted Patents lack a
`written description under § 112 and are therefore invalid? If you did not find infringement in
`Question 1 or Question 2 above, then skip this Question.
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” for each claim.
`
`‘344 Patent
`
`Claim 12 _____
`
`Claim 13 _____
`
`Claim 14 _____
`
`Claim 15 _____
`
`‘966 Patent
`
`Claim 12 _____
`
`Claim 13 _____
`
`‘497 Patent
`
`Claim 9 _____
`
`Claim 16 _____
`
`‘147 Patent
`
`Claim 1 _____
`
`Claim 11 _____
`
`Claim 15 _____
`
`Claim 16 _____
`
`‘069 Patent
`
`Claim 1 _____
`
`Claim 11 _____
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 596 Filed 10/16/18 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 48690
`
`
`
`Question 5: What sum of money do you find that Acceleration Bay has proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence would fairly and reasonably compensate
`Acceleration Bay for Activision’s infringement of Acceleration Bay’s Asserted
`Patents?
`
`
`
`
`$
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Court Security Officer 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.
`
`
`____________________________
`Signature
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________
`
`
`Date
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
