Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 1 of 42 PageID #: 9665
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`VB ASSETS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`C.A. No. 1:19-cv-01410-MN
`
`
`
`
`FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 2 of 42 PageID #: 9666
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`GENERAL ........................................................................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`Consideration of Evidence .................................................................................... 2
`
`Burdens of Proof ................................................................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`PATENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS .................................................................................. 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`The Parties’ Contentions ....................................................................................... 6
`
`Summary of Patent Issues ..................................................................................... 7
`
`The Claims of a Patent .......................................................................................... 8
`
`Infringement – Generally .................................................................................... 10
`
`Direct Infringement ............................................................................................. 11
`
`Indirect Infringement – Induced Infringement ................................................... 13
`
`Invalidity – Generally ......................................................................................... 16
`
`Prior Art – Generally .......................................................................................... 17
`
`Invalidity – Obviousness..................................................................................... 19
`
`Invalidity – Written Description ......................................................................... 22
`
`Invalidity – Patent Eligibility .............................................................................. 25
`
`III.
`
`DAMAGES ..................................................................................................................... 26
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Damages – Generally .......................................................................................... 26
`
`Reasonable Royalty ............................................................................................ 27
`
`Damages – Lump Sum vs. Running Royalty ...................................................... 28
`
`Reasonable Royalty – Factors Relevant to the Hypothetical Negotiation .......... 29
`
`Reasonable Royalty – Apportionment ................................................................ 31
`
`Reasonable Royalty – Comparable License Agreements ................................... 32
`
`Reasonable Royalty – Availability of Non-Infringing Alternatives ................... 34
`
`IV.
`
`DELIBERATIONS AND VERDICT ............................................................................. 35
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Deliberations and Verdict – Introduction ........................................................... 35
`
`Unanimous Verdict ............................................................................................. 36
`
`Duty to Deliberate ............................................................................................... 37
`
`Social Media ....................................................................................................... 38
`
`Court Has No Opinion ........................................................................................ 39
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 3 of 42 PageID #: 9667
`
`
`
`I.
`
`GENERAL
`
`A. INTRODUCTION
`
`Members of the jury, now is the time for me to instruct you about the law that you must
`
`follow in deciding this case. Please listen carefully to everything I say. You must follow all of my
`
`instructions, including the ones that I gave you at the start of the case and the ones I have given
`
`during trial, and not single out some and ignore others. They are all important.
`
`You will have a written copy of these instructions, as well as my preliminary instructions,
`
`with you in the jury room for your reference during your deliberations. You will also have a verdict
`
`form, which will list the questions that you must answer to decide this case.
`
`I will start by reminding you of the respective burdens in this case, and then I will instruct
`
`you concerning the positions of the parties and the law you will apply in this case. Then we will
`
`hear the closing arguments. After that, I will explain the rules that you must follow during your
`
`deliberations in the jury room.
`
`
`
`Source: United States v. Gilead Scis., Inc., No. 19-2103-MN, D.I. 464 at 1 (D. Del. May 8, 2023)
`(Final Jury Instructions) (Noreika, J.).
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 4 of 42 PageID #: 9668
`
`
`
`B. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE
`
`You must make your decision based only on the evidence that you see and hear in court.
`
`Do not let rumors, suspicions, or anything else that you may see or hear outside of court influence
`
`your decision in any way.
`
`You should use your common sense in weighing the evidence. Consider it in light of your
`
`everyday experience with people and events and give it whatever weight you believe it deserves.
`
`If your experience tells you that certain evidence reasonably leads to a conclusion, you are free to
`
`reach that conclusion.
`
`
`
`Source: United States v. Gilead Scis., Inc., No. 19-2103-MN, D.I. 464 at 2 (D. Del. May 8, 2023)
`(Final Jury Instructions) (Noreika, J.); Third Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (“3d Cir.”) at No. 1.5
`Preliminary Instructions—Evidence.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 5 of 42 PageID #: 9669
`
`
`
`C. BURDENS OF PROOF
`
`As I told you on the first day of trial, in a legal action, facts must be proven by a required
`
`standard of evidence, known as the “burden of proof.” In a patent case such as this, there are two
`
`different burdens of proof. The first is called “preponderance of the evidence.” The second is called
`
`“clear and convincing evidence.” I will now remind you what they mean.
`
`This is a civil case in which VB Assets alleges that Amazon has infringed [[VB ASSETS
`
`PROPOSAL: multiple]] [[AMAZON PROPOSAL: five]]1 patents VB Assets owns. VB Assets
`
`has the burden of proving infringement and the amount of monetary damages for any infringement
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence. That means it has to produce evidence that, when considered
`
`in light of all of the facts, leads you to believe that what VB Assets claims is more likely true than
`
`not. To put it differently, if you were to put the parties’ evidence on opposite sides of a scale, the
`
`evidence supporting VB Assets’ claims of infringement and damages must make the scales tip
`
`somewhat on its side. [[AMAZON PROPOSAL: If the scale should remain equal or tip in
`
`favor of Amazon, you must find for Amazon on the issue of infringement.]]2
`
`
`
` 1
`
` VB’s Position: The exact number of patents has and may change over the course of the case. It
`unnecessary to state in this particular instruction.
`
`Amazon’s Position: The Court in both Complete Genomics and Gilead read the number of patents
`at issue.
`
` 2
`
` VB’s Position: VB disagrees that this sentence, which was not read in the Gilead final jury
`instruction, is necessary. There was no prejudice in that case and no prejudice here.
`
`Amazon’s Position: The Court read Amazon’s proposed balancing sentence in both Complete
`Genomics and recently in the TrackTime case. See Complete Genomics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., D.
`Del. No. 1:19-cv-970-MN, D.I. 404 (May 5, 2022); TrackTime LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., D. Del.
`No. 1:18-cv-1518-MN, D.I. 306 at 3 (Sept. 19, 2023). This sentence is a correct statement of the
`law and necessary to balance the instruction, that otherwise would favor VB Assets and prejudice
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 6 of 42 PageID #: 9670
`
`
`
`Amazon contends that VB Assets’ patent is invalid. A party challenging the validity of a
`
`patent has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims are
`
`invalid. [[AMAZON PROPOSAL: That means it has to produce evidence that, when
`
`considered in light of all of the facts, leads you to believe that what Amazon claims]] [[VB
`
`ASSETS PROPOSAL: Clear and convincing evidence ]]3 is highly probable. Proof by clear
`
`and convincing evidence is thus a higher burden than proof by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`[[VB ASSETS PROPOSAL: needed to prove infringement]].4
`
`Some of you may have heard the phrase “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” That burden
`
`is a higher burden of proof that applies only in criminal cases and has nothing to do with a civil
`
`case like this one. You should therefore not consider it in this case and put it out of your mind.
`
`
`
`
`
`Amazon.
`
`
`
` 3
`
` VB’s position: VB’s proposal comes from the Gilead final jury instruction. VB disagrees with
`Amazon that it causes undue prejudice.
`
`Amazon’s position: Amazon’s proposal comes verbatim from the Court’s instruction read to the
`jury in TrackTime. See TrackTime LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., D. Del. No. 1:18-cv-1518-MN, D.I.
`306 at 3 (Sept. 19, 2023). VB Assets proposes to keep the description of its own burden in the
`previous paragraph but to remove the description of Amazon’s burden, which will cause undue
`prejudice to Amazon.
`
` 4
`
` VB’s position: VB’s proposal comes from the Gilead final jury instruction. VB disagrees with
`Amazon that it causes undue prejudice.
`
`Amazon’s Position: The difference between the standards of proof is clear in the agreed portion
`of the sentence. VB Assets unnecessarily inserts the concept of infringement into an instruction
`on Amazon’s burden on invalidity, which can only cause prejudice and confusion. VB Assets
`cites Gilead, but the parties in that case did not dispute this language and thus the Court never
`ruled on whether it was unduly prejudicial. See United States v. Gilead Scis., Inc., D. Del. No. 19-
`2103-MN, D.I. 438 at 7 (Apr. 17, 2023).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 7 of 42 PageID #: 9671
`
`
`
`Source: United States v. Gilead Scis., Inc., No. 19-2103-MN, D.I. 464 at 3 (D. Del. May 8, 2023)
`(Final Jury Instructions) (Noreika, J.); Complete Genomics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 19-970-MN,
`Dkt. 404 (“Complete Genomics Final Instructions”) at 2 (D. Del. May 5, 2022); TrackTime, LLC
`v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al., No. 18-1518-MN, D.I. 280 at 3 (D. Del. Aug. 31, 2023) (Final
`Jury Instructions) (Noreika, J.).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 8 of 42 PageID #: 9672
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PATENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`A. THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
`
`VB Assets filed this case in July 2019, alleging patent infringement against Amazon. You
`
`have heard evidence regarding the five Asserted Patents in this case: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,073,681;
`
`9,626,703; 7,818,176; 8,886,536; and 9,269,097, which have been referred to as the ’681, ’703,
`
`’176, ’536, and ’097 patents, or the “Asserted Patents.”
`
`VB Assets alleges that Amazon has infringed claims 1, 13, 25, and 29 of the ’681 Patent;
`
`claims 15 and 25 of the ’703 Patent; claims 40 and 46 of the ’176 Patent; claim 38 of the ’536
`
`Patent; and claim 23 of the ’097 Patent. You have heard these referred to collectively as the
`
`“asserted claims.” VB Assets also alleges that it is entitled to damages for Amazon’s infringement.
`
`Amazon denies that it has infringed the asserted claims of the asserted patents, and that VB Assets
`
`is entitled to damages. Amazon also contends that all asserted claims of the asserted patents are
`
`invalid.
`
`
`
`Source: United States v. Gilead Scis., Inc., No. 19-2103-MN, D.I. 464 at 4 (D. Del. May 8, 2023)
`(Final Jury Instructions) (Noreika, J.).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 9 of 42 PageID #: 9673
`
`
`
`B. SUMMARY OF PATENT ISSUES
`
`You must decide the following issues in this case according to the instructions that I give
`
`you:
`
`1.
`
`Whether VB Assets has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Amazon
`
`infringes the asserted claims;
`
`2.
`
`Whether VB Assets has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Amazon
`
`willfully infringed one or more of the asserted claims;
`
`3.
`
`Whether Amazon has proven by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of
`
`the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents is invalid; and
`
`If you decide that Amazon infringes any asserted claim of the asserted patents that is not
`
`invalid, then you will also need to decide what money damages should be awarded to compensate
`
`VB Assets.
`
`
`
`Source: United States v. Gilead Scis., Inc., No. 19-2103-MN, D.I. 464 at 5 (D. Del. May 8, 2023)
`(Final Jury Instructions) (Noreika, J.); Complete Genomics Final Instructions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 10 of 42 PageID #: 9674
`
`
`
`C. THE CLAIMS OF A PATENT
`
`Before you can decide many of the issues in this case, you need to understand the role of
`
`patent “claims.” The claims are the numbered sentences at the end of a patent. The claims are
`
`important because the words of a claim define the scope of the patent right. The figures and text
`
`in the rest of the patent provide a description and examples of the invention and provide a context
`
`for the claims, but the claims define the extent of the patent’s coverage.
`
`Here, you will need to understand what each of the asserted claims covers to decide whether
`
`or not that claim is infringed and whether or not each claim is invalid.
`
`Patent claims may exist in two forms, referred to as independent claims or dependent
`
`claims. An independent claim does not refer to any other claim of the patent. Thus, it is not
`
`necessary to look at any other claim to determine what an independent claim covers. Claims 1, 13,
`
`and 25 of the ’681 Patent, claims 15 and 25 of the ’703 Patent, claim 40 of the ’176 Patent, claim
`
`38 of the ’536 Patent, and claim 23 of the ’097 Patent are independent claims.
`
`The other claims at issue in this case are dependent claims. A dependent claim refers to at
`
`least one other claim in the patent. A dependent claim includes each of the terms (also called
`
`“limitations”) of the other claim or claims to which it refers, as well as the additional terms of the
`
`dependent claim itself. Therefore, to determine what a dependent claim covers, it is necessary to
`
`look at both the dependent claim and the other claim to which it refers. For example, claim 29 of
`
`the ’681 Patent refers to claim 25 and is a dependent claim. To determine what claim 29 covers,
`
`the words of that claim and the words of independent claim 25 of the ’681 Patent must be read
`
`together.
`
`It is my job to define the terms of the claims and instruct you about the meaning. It is your
`
`role to apply my definitions to the issues that you are asked to decide. In this case, I have
`
`determined the meanings of the following terms:
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 11 of 42 PageID #: 9675
`
`
`
`• “speech recognition engine” / “speech recognition” means “software or hardware
`that recognizes the words or phrases in the natural language utterance.” These
`terms appear in the ’703 Patent, claims 15 and 25, and the ’176 Patent, claim 40.
`
`• “model” means “an approximation, representation, or idealization of selected
`aspects of the structure, behavior, operation, or other characteristics of a real-
`world process, concept, or system.” This term appears in the ’176 Patent, claim
`46.
`
`You must accept my definition of this term as being correct. It is your job to take this
`
`definition and apply it to the issues that you are deciding, including the issues of infringement and
`
`invalidity.
`
`For any words in the claim for which I have not provided you with a definition, you should
`
`apply the ordinary meaning in the field of the patents. You should not take my definition of the
`
`language of the claims as an indication that I have a view regarding how you should decide the
`
`issues that you are being asked to decide, such as infringement and invalidity. These issues are
`
`yours to decide.
`
`
`
`Source: Adapted from United States v. Gilead Scis., Inc., No. 19-2103-MN, D.I. 464 at 6-7 (D.
`Del. May 8, 2023) (Final Jury Instructions) (Noreika, J.); (D.I 89).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 12 of 42 PageID #: 9676
`
`
`
`D. INFRINGEMENT – GENERALLY
`
`The United States’ patent law gives the owner of a valid patent the right to exclude others
`
`from importing, making, using, offering to sell, or selling the patented product or method in the
`
`United States during the term of the patent. Any person or company that has engaged in any of
`
`those acts without the patent owner’s permission infringes the patent.
`
`To prove infringement, a patent owner must prove that the requirements for infringement
`
`are met by a preponderance of the evidence that all of the requirements of infringement have been
`
`proved.
`
`Infringement is assessed on a claim-by-claim basis. Thus, a patent owner bears the burden
`
`of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that each of the asserted claims of its asserted
`
`patents is infringed. Therefore, you, the jury, must determine infringement for each patent and
`
`each claim separately.
`
`I will now explain each type of infringement in more detail.
`
`Source: Complete Genomics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 19-970-MN, D.I. 404 at 9 (D. Del. May.
`5, 2022) (Final Jury Instructions) (Noreika, J.).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 13 of 42 PageID #: 9677
`
`
`
`E. INFRINGEMENT
`
`You must determine whether VB Assets has proven infringement of one or more of the
`
`asserted claims.
`
`As I just told you, you must determine, separately for each asserted claim, whether or not
`
`there is infringement. There is one exception to this rule. If you find that an independent claim is
`
`not infringed, there cannot be infringement of any dependent claim that refers directly or indirectly
`
`to that claim. On the other hand, if you find that an independent claim has been infringed, you
`
`must still separately decide whether the additional requirements of any claims that depend from
`
`that independent claim were met, in order to determine whether the dependent claims have also
`
`been infringed. Remember, a dependent claim includes all the requirements of any of the claims
`
`to which it refers plus additional requirements of its own.
`
`To determine infringement, you must compare the accused products or process with each
`
`asserted claim to determine whether each and every one of the requirements of that claim is
`
`satisfied. A patent claim is infringed only if the product or process includes each and every
`
`limitation in that patent claim. If the accused product or process does not contain one or more
`
`elements or steps recited in a claim, there is no infringement. The presence of other elements or
`
`additional steps in the accused product or process is beyond those claimed, however, does not
`
`avoid infringement, as long as every claimed element is present.
`
`Proof of infringement may be based on circumstantial evidence.
`
`One may infringe a patent unknowingly – that is, without knowledge that what one is doing
`
`is an infringement of the patent. One can be a infringer of a patent even if that person believes in
`
`good faith that he is not infringing any patent or even if he does not know of the patent.
`
`All steps of the claimed method must be performed for there to be infringement of an
`
`asserted claim. If any step of an asserted claim is not performed, there is no infringement.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 14 of 42 PageID #: 9678
`
`
`
`
`
`Source: Adapted from United States v. Gilead Scis., Inc., No. 19-2103-MN, D.I. 464 at 9-10 (D.
`Del. May 8, 2023) (Final Jury Instructions) (Noreika, J.); Complete Genomics, Inc. v. Illumina,
`Inc., No. 19-970-MN, D.I. 404 at 10-11 (D. Del. May. 5, 2022) (Final Jury Instructions) (Noreika,
`J.).
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 15 of 42 PageID #: 9679
`
`
`
`F. WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`If you find that Amazon infringed a valid claim of VB Assets’s patents, then you must also
`
`determine whether or not such infringement was willful.
`
`To show that infringement was willful, VB Assets must prove by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that Amazon knew of the asserted patents and intentionally infringed at least one asserted
`
`claim of the asserted patents. To show willfulness, you must find that Amazon has engaged in
`
`conduct evidencing deliberate or reckless disregard for VB Assets’s patent rights. However, you
`
`may not find that infringement was willful merely because Amazon knew about the asserted
`
`patents, without more. In determining whether VB Assets has proven that Amazon’s infringement
`
`was willful, you must consider all of the circumstances and assess Amazon’s knowledge at the
`
`time the challenged conduct occurred, including: whether Amazon intentionally copied the
`
`patented technology in developing the accused products; whether Amazon knew or should have
`
`known, that its conduct involved an unreasonable risk of infringement; and whether Amazon had
`
`a reasonable belief that its products did not infringe the asserted patent or that the patent was
`
`invalid.
`
`If you determine that any infringement was willful, you may not allow that decision to
`
`affect the amount of any damages award you give for infringement.
`
`Source: TrackTime LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-1518-MN, D.I. 306 at 9 (Sept.
`19, 2023).
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 16 of 42 PageID #: 9680
`
`
`
`G. [[VB ASSETS PROPOSAL: INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT – INDUCED
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`VB Assets also alleges that Amazon is liable for inducing its customers to directly
`
`infringe the asserted patents. A party induces patent infringement if it purposefully causes,
`
`urges, instructs, aids or encourages another to use a product in a manner that infringes an
`
`asserted claim. In order to find a party liable for inducing infringement, there must be a
`
`direct infringement of that claim by another party. If there is no direct infringement by
`
`anyone, there can be no induced infringement.
`
`Unlike direct infringement, inducing infringement cannot occur unintentionally. To
`
`prove inducement, VB Assets must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Amazon
`
`knowingly induced acts of direct infringement, meaning that it must prove that:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Amazon aided, instructed, or otherwise acted with the intent to cause acts by
`its customers that would constitute direct infringement of the patent claim(s);
`
`Amazon was aware of the patent at that time, or showed willful blindness to
`the existence of the patent; and
`
`Amazon knew, or showed willful blindness, that the actions of the infringing
`customers would directly infringe at least one claim of the patent; and
`
`Amazon actually caused the infringing customers to carry out the acts of direct
`infringement.
`
`To find willful blindness, you must find that (1) the accused party subjectively
`
`believed that there is a high probability that a patent existed covering the accused method
`
`and that the actions of the infringing customers would directly infringe at least one claim of
`
`the patent; and (2) took deliberate actions to avoid learning of the patent and the
`
`infringement.
`
`VB Assets has accused Amazon of inducing its customers to infringe. If you find that
`
`Amazon believed in good faith that it was not aiding, instructing or otherwise causing
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 17 of 42 PageID #: 9681
`
`
`
`directly infringing acts by its customers, you may not find that that Amazon induces
`
`infringement.
`
`
`
`Source: Adapted from United States v. Gilead Scis., Inc., No. 19-2103-MN, D.I. 464 at 13 (D.
`Del. May 8, 2023) (Final Jury Instructions) (Noreika, J.); Complete Genomics, Inc. v.
`Illumina, Inc., No. 19-970-MN, D.I. 404 at 10-11 (D. Del. May. 5, 2022) (Final Jury
`Instructions) (Noreika, J.).]]5
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
` VB’s Position: VB Assets continues to maintain its claim of induced infringement with respect
`to the different Amazon defendants. VB Assets disagrees that its proper to eliminate those claims
`here. Amazon never sought to dismiss such allegations. Nor did Amazon move for summary
`judgment on this issue.
`
`Amazon’s Position: Amazon objects to the inclusion of or any reference to induced infringement.
`VB Assets’s infringement expert, Nathaniel Polish, provides no substantive opinion on inducing
`infringement in his opening or reply infringement reports, and thus, VB Assets will not adduce
`any related evidence at trial. The entirety of Dr. Polish’s induced infringement opinion is as
`follows: “The devices and apps listed above would indirectly infringe because they induce use of
`Alexa.” (Polish Op. Rep. ¶ 11).
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 18 of 42 PageID #: 9682
`
`
`
`H. INVALIDITY – GENERALLY
`
`I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in deciding whether or not Amazon has
`
`proven that the asserted claims of VB Assets’ patent are invalid. As I previously told you, to prove
`
`that a claim of a patent is invalid, Amazon must persuade you by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`Like infringement, you must determine whether each asserted claim is invalid. As I
`
`instructed you earlier, there are independent claims and dependent claims in a patent. A dependent
`
`claim recites all the requirements of its independent claim and adds additional requirements. This
`
`means the scope of the dependent claim should be narrower than the scope of the independent
`
`claim from which it depends. Finding the broader independent claim to be invalid does not mean
`
`the narrower dependent claims are also invalid. However, if you find a narrower dependent claim
`
`to be invalid, you must find the broader independent claim from which it depends is also invalid.
`
`
`
`Source: Complete Genomics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 19-970-MN, D.I. 404 at 16 (D. Del. May.
`5, 2022) (Final Jury Instructions) (Noreika, J.).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 19 of 42 PageID #: 9683
`
`
`
`I. PRIOR ART – GENERALLY
`
`For someone to be entitled to a patent, the invention must actually be “new” and not
`
`obvious over what came before, which is referred to as the prior art. Prior art is considered in
`
`determining whether the asserted claims of the asserted patents would have been obvious to a
`
`person of skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`Here, the parties agree that the invention dates for the asserted patents, for purposes of
`
`assessing prior art, are as follows:
`
`• October 16, 2006 for the ’681 Patent;
`
`• February 6, 2007 for the ’176, ’536, and ’097 Patents;
`
`• September 16, 2014 for the ’703 Patent.
`
`Prior art may include items that were publicly known or that have been used or offered for
`
`sale, or references, such as publications or patents, or products, systems, or technologies that
`
`disclose the claimed invention or elements of the claimed invention.
`
`Amazon contends that the following is prior art to the asserted patents:
`
`• The MIT Galaxy System;
`
`• The MiPad System;
`
`• The HeyAnita System;
`
`• The UNITED System;
`
`• The textbook by Xuedong Huang et al. titled “Spoken Language Processing: A
`
`Guide to Theory, Algorithm and System Development” (referred to as “Huang
`
`III”);
`
`• Japanese Patent Publication No. 2002297626 to Yonebayashi et al. (referred to as
`
`“Yonebayashi”);
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 20 of 42 PageID #: 9684
`
`
`
`
`
`• United States Patent No. 7,231,343 to Treadgold et al. ( referred to as “Treadgold”);
`
`• United States Patent Publication No. 2005/0080775 to Colledge et al. (referred to
`
`as “Colledge”); and
`
`• United States Patent No. 7,376,586 to Partovi et al. (referred to as “Partovi”).
`
`Source: Adapted from United States v. Gilead Scis., Inc., No. 19-2103-MN, D.I. 464 at 13 (D.
`Del. May 8, 2023) (Final Jury Instructions) (Noreika, J.); see also Federal Circuit Bar Association
`(FCBA) No. B.4.3a-1 (Prior Art (If Not in Dispute)).
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 21 of 42 PageID #: 9685
`
`
`
`J.
`
`INVALIDITY – OBVIOUSNESS
`
`A claimed invention is invalid as “obvious” if it would have been obvious to the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The issue is not whether the claimed
`
`inventions would have been obvious to you as a layperson or to me as the judge, or to a genius in
`
`the relevant field, but whether it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the invention was made.
`
`In this case, Amazon contends that the asserted claims are invalid for obviousness.
`
`Obviousness can only be found if you find that a reason existed at the time of the invention
`
`to combine the elements of the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention, and there would have
`
`been a reasonable expectation of success for doing so. In determining whether the claimed
`
`invention was obvious, consider each claim separately. Obviousness may be shown by considering
`
`one or more than one item of prior art.
`
`In determining whether an asserted claim is obvious, you must first consider the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent field that someone would have had at the time the invention was
`
`made, the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the prior art and the asserted
`
`claims, and, if present, objective evidence or secondary considerations. You must determine what
`
`is the level of ordinary skill according to the instruction I gave you earlier.
`
`Second, you must determine what is the prior art that may be considered in determining
`
`whether the asserted claims are obvious. A prior art reference may be considered if it discloses
`
`information designed to solve any problems or need addressed by the patent or if the reference
`
`discloses information that has obvious uses beyond its main purpose that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would reasonably examine to solve any problem or need addressed by the patent.
`
`Third, you must decide what difference, if any, existed between the claimed invention and
`
`the prior art.
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 244 Filed 09/28/23 Page 22 of 42 PageID #: 9686
`
`
`
`In deciding obviousness, you must avoid using hindsight; that is, you should not consider
`
`what is known today or what was learned from the teachings of the asserted patents. As I instructed
`
`you earlier, you must put yourself in the place of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the invention was made.
`
`In considering whether a claimed invention is obvious, you should consider whether, at the
`
`relevant time, there was a reason that would have prompted a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`field of the invention to combine the known elements in the prior art in a way the claimed invention
`
`does, taking into account such factors as (1) whether the claimed invention was merely the
`
`predictable result of using prior art elements according to their known function(s); (2) whether the
`
`claimed invention provides an obvious solution to a known problem in the relevant field; (3)
`
`whether the prior art teaches or suggests the desirability of combining elements claimed in the
`
`invention; (4) whether the prior art teaches away from combining elements in the claimed
`
`invention; (5) whether it would have been obvious to try the combinations of elements, such as
`
`when there is a design incentive or