Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 241 Filed 09/28/23 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 9624
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C.A. No. 1:19-cv-01410-MN
`
`
`
`VB ASSETS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM LLC,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., A2Z
`DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC. d/b/a LAB126,
`RAWLES LLC, AMZN MOBILE LLC, AMZN
`MOBILE 2 LLC, AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC.
`f/k/a AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES, INC.,
`and AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM
`
`In answering the following questions, you are to follow the instructions I have given you
`
`in the Court’s jury charge. Your answers to each question must be unanimous. Some of the
`
`questions contain legal terms that are defined and explained in detail in the Final Jury Instructions.
`
`You should refer to and consider the Final Jury Instructions as you answer these questions in the
`
`Verdict Form.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C.A. No. 1:19-cv-01410-MN
`
`
`
`VB ASSETS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM LLC,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., A2Z
`DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC. d/b/a LAB126,
`RAWLES LLC, AMZN MOBILE LLC, AMZN
`MOBILE 2 LLC, AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC.
`f/k/a AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES, INC.,
`and AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM
`
`In answering the following questions, you are to follow the instructions I have given you
`
`in the Court’s jury charge. Your answers to each question must be unanimous. Some of the
`
`questions contain legal terms that are defined and explained in detail in the Final Jury Instructions.
`
`You should refer to and consider the Final Jury Instructions as you answer these questions in the
`
`Verdict Form.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 241 Filed 09/28/23 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 9625
`
`QUESTION 1: INFRINGEMENT
`
`Has VB Assets proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Amazon infringed any of
`the following claims of the asserted patents?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ’681 Patent
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 13
`
`Claim 25
`
`Claim 29
`
`
`
`
`
`’703 Patent
`
`
`
`
`Claim 15
`
`Claim 25
`
`’176 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 40
`
`Claim 46
`
`’536 Patent
`
`
`
`Claim 38
`
`’097 Patent
`
`
`
`Claim 23
`
`YES
`(finding for VB Assets)
`
`
`
`NO
`(finding for Amazon)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Please proceed to the next question.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 241 Filed 09/28/23 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 9626
`
`QUESTION 2: INVALIDITY
`
`A. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`
`Did Amazon prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the following claims of the
`asserted patents are invalid for lack of adequate written description?
`
`
`
`
`
`NO
`(finding for VB Assets)
`
`
`
`YES
`(finding for Amazon)
`
` ’681 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 13
`
`Claim 25
`
`Claim 29
`
`’703 Patent
`
`
`
`
`Claim 15
`
`Claim 25
`
`’176 Patent
`
`
`
`
`Claim 40
`
`Claim 46
`
`’536 Patent
`
`Claim 38
`
`’097 Patent
`
`
`
`Claim 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Please proceed to the next question.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 241 Filed 09/28/23 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 9627
`
`QUESTION 2: INVALIDITY (CONTINUED)
`
`B.
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`
`Did Amazon prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the following claims of the ’681
`Patent are invalid as obvious in light of the prior art?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YES
`(finding for Amazon)
`
`
`
`NO
`(finding for VB Assets)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 13
`
`Claim 25
`
`Claim 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`If you answered YES above for a Claim, which piece(s) of prior art
`did you rely upon for finding that Claim of the ’681 Patent is invalid?
`
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`MIT Galaxy System
`
`MiPad System
`
`HeyAnita System
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`____________
`
`____________
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 241 Filed 09/28/23 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 9628
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 13
`
`MIT Galaxy System
`
`MiPad System
`
`HeyAnita System
`
`Claim 25
`
`MIT Galaxy System
`
`MiPad System
`
`HeyAnita System
`
`
`Claim 29
`
`MIT Galaxy System
`
`MiPad System
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`____________
`
`____________
`
`____________
`
`____________
`
`____________
`
`____________
`
`____________
`
`HeyAnita System, Huang III ____________
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 241 Filed 09/28/23 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 9629
`
`(1)
`
`Did Amazon prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the following claims of
`the ’703 Patent are invalid as obvious in light of the prior art?
`
`
`
`
`
`YES
`(finding for Amazon)
`
`
`
`
`
`NO
`(finding for VB Assets)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 15
`
`Claim 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`If you answered YES above for a Claim, which piece(s) of prior
`art did you rely upon for finding that Claim of the ’703 Patent
`is invalid?
`
`Claim 15
`
`United System, Partovi
`
`
`
`____________
`
`MIT Galaxy System, Partovi
`
`____________
`
`
`Claim 25
`
`
`
`United System, Partovi
`
`
`
`____________
`
`MIT Galaxy System, Partovi
`
`____________
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 241 Filed 09/28/23 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 9630
`
`(2)
`
`Did Amazon prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the following claims of
`the ’176 Patent are invalid as obvious in light of the prior art?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 40
`
`Claim 46
`
`YES
`(finding for Amazon)
`
`
`
`
`
`NO
`(finding for VB Assets)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`If you answered YES above for a Claim, which piece(s) of prior
`art did you rely upon for finding that Claim of the ’176 Patent
`is invalid?
`
`Claim 40
`
`MIT Galaxy System, Yonebayashi
`
`HeyAnita System, Treadgold
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Claim 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MIT Galaxy System, Yonebayashi, Colledge
`
`____________
`
`HeyAnita System, Treadgold, Colledge
`
`
`
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 241 Filed 09/28/23 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 9631
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(3)
`
`Did Amazon prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that claim 38 of the ’536
`Patent is invalid as obvious in light of the prior art?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 38
`
`
`
`YES
`(finding for Amazon)
`
`
`
`
`
`NO
`(finding for VB Assets)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`If you answered YES above for Claim 38, which piece(s) of prior
`art did you rely upon for finding that Claim 38 of the ’536 Patent
`is invalid?
`
`MIT Galaxy System, Yonebayashi ____________
`
`HeyAnita System
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`(4)
`
`Did Amazon prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that claim 23 of the ’097
`Patent is invalid as obvious in light of the prior art?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 23
`
`YES
`(finding for Amazon)
`
`
`
`
`
`NO
`(finding for VB Assets)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`If you answered YES above for Claim 23, which piece(s) of prior
`art did you rely upon for finding that Claim 23 of the ’097 Patent
`is invalid?
`
`
`
`MIT Galaxy System, Yonebayashi ____________
`
`HeyAnita System
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Please proceed to the next question.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 241 Filed 09/28/23 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9632
`
`QUESTION 3: PATENT INELIGIBILITY
`
`Did Amazon prove by clear and convincing evidence that, from the perspective of one of
`ordinary skill in the art, when taken individually or as an ordered combination, the following
`claims of the asserted patents only involved activities that were well-understood, routine, and
`conventional as of the time of the invention?
`
`
`
`
`
`YES
`(finding for Amazon)
`
`
`
`
`
`NO
`(finding for VB Assets)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’681 Patent
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 13
`
`Claim 25
`
`Claim 29
`
`
`
`’703 Patent
`
`Claim 15
`
`
`Claim 25
`
`’176 Patent
`
`Claim 40
`
`
`Claim 46
`
`’536 Patent
`
`Claim 38
`
`’097 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 23
`
`
`
`
`
`Please proceed to the next page.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 241 Filed 09/28/23 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 9633
`
`If you have reached this point in the Verdict Form, you should have answered Questions 1
`
`through 3. If you have not answered Questions 1 through 3, please go back and answer them
`
`before proceeding.
`
`
`
`If you answered “NO” for all claims in Question 1, OR if your answers for Questions 2A OR
`
`2B include at least one “YES” answer for each claim, then do not answer any further
`
`questions. Proceed to the last page, have your Jury Foreperson sign and date this Verdict
`
`Form, and then deliver it to the Court Security Officer. You should not pay attention to any
`
`other instructions between this point and the signature page found at the end of this Verdict
`
`Form.
`
`
`
`You should only proceed to answer Questions 4 and 5 if you (1) answered “YES” for any
`
`claim in Question 1, and (2) you answered “NO” for that same claim in Questions 2A AND
`
`2B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 241 Filed 09/28/23 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 9634
`
`QUESTION 4: DAMAGES
`
`A. What sum of money do you find VB Assets has proven it is entitled to?
`
`$
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Did you calculate this number based on a running royalty or a one-time lump
`B.
`sum (please check only one)?
`
`
`_____ Lump sum
`
`
`
`_____ Running royalty1
`
`
`
`Please proceed to the next page.
`
`
`
`
`1 VB Assets’s damages expert advances a running royalty opinion. Amazon’s damages expert
`advances a lump sum opinion. The jury must therefore be instructed on the difference and respond
`to a question explaining the damages it awards. See, e.g., TrackTime, LLC v. Amazon Services
`LLC et al., D. Del. No. 1:18-cv-01518-MN, D.I. 307, 308 at 8 (Sept. 19, 2023).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 241 Filed 09/28/23 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 9635
`
`QUESTION 5: WILLFULNESS
`
`If you found any claim of the asserted patents infringed and the same claim not
`invalid, did VB Assets prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Amazon’s
`infringement was willful?2
`
`
`
`
`
`YES
`(finding for VB Assets)
`
`
`
`
`
`NO
`(finding for Amazon)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’681 Patent
`
`
`
`’703 Patent
`
`
`
`’176 Patent
`
`
`
`’536 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’097 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Please proceed to the Final Page of the Verdict Form.
`
`
`
`
`2 VB Assets’ question regarding willfulness is prejudicial and so is its placement after the first
`question on infringement. The jury need not answer a question on willfulness if it finds the asserted
`claims to be invalid. Further, willfulness should be considered after the damages question to avoid
`any confusion over whether willfulness should inform the jury’s damages award, if any. See, e.g.,
`TrackTime, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC, D. Del. No. 1:18-cv-01518, D.I. 307, 308 at 8
`(Sept. 19, 2023).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 241 Filed 09/28/23 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 9636
`
`FINAL PAGE OF THE JURY VERDICT
`
`You have now reached the end of the Verdict Form and should review it to ensure it
`
`accurately reflects your unanimous determinations. All jurors should then sign and date the
`
`Verdict Form in the space below. Once this is done, notify the Court Security Officer that you
`
`have reached a verdict. The jury foreperson should keep the Verdict Form and bring it in when
`
`the jury is brought back to the court room.
`
`
`Signed this ______ day of ___________, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`Jury Foreperson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signed:
`
`
`
`
`_________________________
`
`_________________________
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` _________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`_________________________
`
`_________________________
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
