Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 289 Filed 01/30/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 40970
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`GODADDY.COM, LLC,
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No.1:19-cv-01937-MFK
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`GODADDY.COM, LLC,
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No.1:19-cv-01937-MFK
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 289 Filed 01/30/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 40971
`
`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: Infringement
`
`
`Did Express Mobile prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GoDaddy infringes the
`identified claim of the Asserted Patents?
`
`Please check “Yes” or “No” for each claim. “Yes” is in favor of Express Mobile and “No”
`is in favor of GoDaddy.
`
`
`’755 Patent
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`’287 Patent
`
`’044 Patent
`
`Claim 3:
`
`Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 12: Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 16: Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 22: Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 13: Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 11: Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 13: Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 17: Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 19: Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`
`Please Proceed to Question 2.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 289 Filed 01/30/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 40972
`
`QUESTION 2: Willfulness1
`
`Did Express Mobile prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GoDaddy willfully infringes
`the identified claim of the Asserted Patents?
`
`
`’755 Patent
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`’287 Patent
`
`’044 Patent
`
`Claim 3:
`
`Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 12: Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 16: Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 22: Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 13: Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 11: Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 13: Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 17: Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`Claim 19: Yes: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`No: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`
`
`Please Proceed to Question 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 As set forth in the [Proposed] Pretrial Order, Express Mobile submits that the Court denied
`GoDaddy’s motion for summary judgment of willfulness and therefore willfulness is an issue in
`the case that should be decided by the jury. GoDaddy contends the Court granted summary
`judgment on willfulness and as such this issue should not be decided by the jury.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 289 Filed 01/30/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 40973
`
`QUESTION 3: Invalidity
`
`
`Did GoDaddy prove by clear and convincing evidence that the identified claim is invalid?
`
`Please check “Yes” or “No” for each claim. “Yes” is in favor of GoDaddy and “No” is in
`favor of Express Mobile.
`
`
`’755 Patent
`
`No: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`’287 Patent
`
`’044 Patent
`
`Claim 3:
`
`Yes: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`No: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`Claim 12: Yes: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`No: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`Claim 16: Yes: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`No: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`Claim 22: Yes: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`No: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`No: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`Claim 13: Yes: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`No: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`No: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`Claim 11: Yes: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`No: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`Claim 13: Yes: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`No: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`Claim 17: Yes: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`No: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`Claim 19: Yes: ____ (for GoDaddy)
`
`No: ____ (for Express Mobile)
`
`
`If you checked “Yes” for any claims in Question 1 and checked “No” for any such claims in
`in Question 3, i.e., you determined that at least one claim is infringed and not invalid,
`proceed to Question 4.
`
`Otherwise, skip and DO NOT answer Question 4, and instead please proceed directly to the
`Final Page of the Jury Verdict and sign and date that page.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 289 Filed 01/30/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 40974
`
`QUESTION 4: Damages
`
`
`What sum of money in the form of a reasonable royalty do you find that Express Mobile proved
`by a preponderance of the evidence would fairly and reasonably compensate Express Mobile for
`GoDaddy’s past infringement of Express Mobile’s Asserted Patents?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` $
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`fully paid-up lump sum; or
`
`running royalty through trial (February 27, 2023)?
`
`
`Is that sum a (check one):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Please proceed to the Final Page of the Verdict Form and sign and date that page.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 289 Filed 01/30/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 40975
`
`Final Page of the Jury Verdict
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`You have now reached the end of the verdict form and should review it to ensure it accurately
`reflects your unanimous determinations. The foreperson 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 foreperson should retain possession of the verdict form and bring it when the jury is brought
`back into the courtroom.
`
`
`
`
`
`Signature
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
