throbber
Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 284 Filed 09/27/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 36360
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 22-904 (RGA) (SRF)
`
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`
`INSTRUCTIONS:
`
`
`When answering the following questions and filling out this Verdict Form, please follow
`the directions provided throughout this Verdict Form.
`
`As used in this Verdict Form:
`
`1.
`
`“Acceleration Bay” refers to Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“Amazon” refers to Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc.
`
`The “ ’966 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent Number 6,714,966.
`
`The “ ’147 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent Number 6,732,147.
`
`Please turn to the next page.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 284 Filed 09/27/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 36361
`
`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: Has Acceleration Bay proven by a preponderance of the evidence that CloudFront
`infringed either of the Asserted Claims?
`
`Check “Yes” or “No” for each claim.
`
`“Yes” is a finding for Acceleration Bay (i.e., that CloudFront infringed the
`claim).
`
`“No” is a finding for Amazon (i.e., that CloudFront did not infringe the claim).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accused Product: CloudFront
`
`Yes
`(Acceleration Bay)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`(Amazon)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 12 of the ’966 Patent
`
`Claim 6 of the ’147 Patent
`
`
`
`Go to Question 2.
`
`
`Question 2: Has Amazon proven by a preponderance of the evidence that The Boeing Company
`used CloudFront prior to December 2014?
`
`
`
`“Yes” is a finding for Amazon (i.e., that The Boeing Company used the product
`before December 2014).
`
`“No” is a finding for Acceleration Bay (i.e., that The Boeing Company did not
`use the product before December 2014).
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`(Amazon)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`(Acceleration Bay)
`
`CloudFront
`
`
`
`If in Question 1, you found that CloudFront infringes at least one of the two claims, and in
`Question 2 you answered “No,” go to Question 3. Otherwise, skip Question 3 and go to
`Question 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 284 Filed 09/27/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 36362
`
`
`
`Question 3: For each Patent for which you found infringement by CloudFront, has Acceleration
`Bay proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Amazon willfully infringed
`the Patent?
`
`
`
`
`
`Check “Yes” or “No.”
`
`“Yes” is a finding for Acceleration Bay (i.e., that Amazon’s infringement was
`willful).
`
`“No” is a finding for Amazon (i.e., that Amazon’s infringement was not willful).
`
`Yes
`(Acceleration Bay)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`(Amazon)
`
`
`
`
`
`’966 Patent
`
`’147 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Go to Question 4.
`
`
`Question 4: Has Acceleration Bay proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Virtual
`Private Cloud (“VPC”) infringed either of the Asserted Claims?
`
`Check “Yes” or “No” for each claim.
`
`“Yes” is a finding for Acceleration Bay (i.e., that VPC infringed the claim).
`
`“No” is a finding for Amazon (i.e., that VPC did not infringe the claim).
`
`Accused Product: Virtual Private Cloud (“VPC”)
`
`Yes
`(Acceleration Bay)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No
`(Amazon)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 12 of the ’966 Patent
`
`Claim 6 of the ’147 Patent
`
`
`
`Go to Question 5.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 284 Filed 09/27/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 36363
`
`Question 5: Has Amazon proven by a preponderance of the evidence that The Boeing Company
`used VPC prior to December 2014?
`
`
`
`“Yes” is a finding for Amazon (i.e., that The Boeing Company used the product
`before December 2014).
`
`“No” is a finding for Acceleration Bay (i.e., that The Boeing Company did not
`use the product before December 2014).
`
`
`
`
`Yes
`(Amazon)
`
`
`
`No
`(Acceleration Bay)
`
`VPC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Go to Question 6 if in Question 1 you found that CloudFront infringes at least one of the two
`claims and in Question 2 you answered “No,” or if in Question 4 you found that VPC
`infringes at least one of the two claims and in Question 5 you answered “No.” Otherwise,
`skip Questions 6 and 7 and go to the last page.
`
`
`Question 6: 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 Amazon’s infringement of the Asserted Claims?
`
`
`
`$
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Go to Question 7.
`
`Question 7: Of the sum of money you decided on in answer to Question 6, how much of that is
`based on CloudFront?
`
`
`
`$
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Go to the last page.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 284 Filed 09/27/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 36364
`
`
`After completing the verdict form, you should review it to ensure that 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
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________
`
`
`Date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

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