`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 1 of 13
`
`\
`iiycri \’a\\01i\3
`United States District Court
`
`District of Massachusetts
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS
`ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiffs /Counterc1aim—Defendants ,
`
`v_
`
`ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION ,
`
`Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
`
`xauas/\/\/sahax/\4\.dsa\a
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`10-11041-NMG
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`In answering these questions, you are to follow all of the instructions I have given you
`in the Court's charge.
`As used herein, “Philips” means the Plaintiffs/Counterclaim—
`Defendants Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips Electronics North America Corporation and
`“ZOLL" means the Defendant/Counterclaim—Plaintiff ZOLL Medical Corporation.
`
`WE, THE JURY, UNANIMOUSLY FIND AS FOLLOWS:
`
`LIFECOR-1018
`ZOLL Lifecor Corporation v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
`|F’R2013—OO606,
`|F’R2013—OO607,
`|F’R2013—OO609,
`|F’R2013—OO612,
`|PR2013—OO613,
`|F’R2013-00615,
`|F’R2013-00616,
`|PR2013—OO618
`
` LIFECOR-1018
` ZOLL Lifecor Corporation v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
` IPR2013-00606, IPR2013-00607, IPR2013-00609, IPR2013-00612,
`IPR2013-00613, IPR2013-00615, IPR2013-00616, IPR2013-00618
`
`
`
`Case 1:10—cv—11041—NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 2 of 13
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 2 of 13
`
`A.
`
`Phi1ips’s ‘46O Se1f—Test Patent
`
`I.
`
`Patent Infringement: PhiliEs’s Patents
`
`1) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that ZOLL’s defibrillators
`directly infringe the following claim of the '46O patent?
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,800,460
`
`Claim 7
`
`AED Plus
`
`NO
`
`YES
`
`L/’
`
`AED Pro
`
`NO
`
`YES
`
`L//
`
`2) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that others directly infringed
`the following claim of the ’46O patent through use of ZOLL’s defibrillators, and that
`ZOLL knowingly contributed to such infringement?
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,800,460
`
`[
`
`YES
`
`AED Plus
`
`NO
`
`YES
`
`AED Pro
`
`Claim 7
`
`NO
`
`(/
`
`3) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that others directly infringed
`the following claim of the '46O patent through use of ZOLL’s defihrillators, and that
`ZOLL knowingly induced such infringement?
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,800,460
`
`Claim 7
`
`AED Plus
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`/_
`
`AED Pro
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`/
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 3 of 13
`Case 1:10-cv—11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 3 of 13
`
`B.
`
`Philips’s
`
`‘374 Self—Test Patent
`
`1) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that ZOLL’s defibrillators
`directly infringe the following claims of the ’374 patent?
`
`U.s. Patent No. 5,879,374
`
`YES
`
`AED Plus
`
`NO
`
`YES
`
`AED Pro
`
`NO
`
`[
`
`YES
`
`R Series
`
`NO
`
`YES
`
`E Series
`
`NO
`
`YES
`
`M Series
`
`NO
`
`YES
`
`X Series
`
`NO
`
`Claim 42
`Claim 43‘
`
`b/
`p/
`
`Claim 66
`Claim 67
`Claim 68
`
`Claim 73
`
`L/
`1 V/
`
`p/
`b/
`
`V/
`V/
`
`L/
`
`L//
`
`V/
`
`L/’
`
`2) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that others directly infringed
`and that
`the following claims of the ’374 patent through use of ZOLL’s defibrillators,
`ZOLL knowingly contributed to such infringement?
`
`U.s. Patent No. 5,879,374
`___
`r__§ED Plus
`YES
`NO
`
`AED Pro
`YES
`
`E Series
`
`
`Claim 42
`—Claim 43
`
`Claim 66
`Claim 67
`Claim 68
`Claim 73
`
`L/
`b/
`
`p/
`
`9/
`L/
`9/
`
`
`
`Case 1:10—cv—11041—NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 4 of 13
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 4 of 13
`
`3) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that othe£§ directly infringed
`the following claims of the ’374 patent through use of ZOLL’s defibrillators, and that
`ZOLL knowingly induced such infringement?
`
`[u.s. Patent No. 5,879,374
`AED Plus
`YES
`NO
`
`i
`AED Pro
`YES
`NO
`
`R Series
`YES
`NO
`
`E Series
`YE S
`NO
`
`M Series
`YE S
`NO
`
`X Series
`YES
`NO
`
`Claim 42
`
`Claim 43
`Claim 66
`Claim 67
`
`Claim 68
`Claim 73
`
`1/
`
`1/
`F V
`{/
`
`|_ 1/
`r/
`
`V
`
`1/
`V
`(/
`
`1/
`1/
`
`V
`
`l/’
`
`(/
`
`1/
`
`1/
`
`1/
`
`2/
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv—11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 5 of 13
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 5 of 13
`
`C.
`
`Philips's
`
`‘454 Waveform Patent
`
`1) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that ZOLL’s defibrillators
`directly infringe the following claim of the ’454 patent?
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,607,454
`
`AED Plus
`YES
`NO
`1/
`
`AED Pro
`YES
`NO
`1/
`
`R Series
`YES
`NO
`1/
`
`E Series
`YES 7
`NO
`1/
`
`M Series
`YES
`NO
`1/
`
`4_rX Series
`YES
`NO
`1/ 1
`
`Claim 51
`
`2) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that others directly infringed
`the following claim of the ’454 patent through use of ZOLL’s defibrillators, and that
`ZOLL knowingly contributed to such infringement?
`
`7
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,607,454
`AED Plus
`_ YES
`I
`NO
`1 1/
`
`Claim 51
`
`AED Pro
`YES
`NO
`V 1/
`
`R Series
`YES
`NO
`1/
`
`E Series
`YES
`NO
`1/
`
`M Series
`YES
`NO
`1/
`
`X Series
`YES
`NO
`V
`
`3) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that others directly infringed
`the following claim of the ’454 patent through use of ZOLL’s defibrillators, and that
`ZOLL knowingly induced such infringement?
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,607,454
`
`_L
`
`AED Plus
`YES
`NO
`1/
`
`AED Pro
`was
`|_No
`1 1/
`
`R Series
`us |
`NO
`1
`1/
`
`E Series
`|
`| was
`NO
`1
`1/
`
`M Series
`ms
`NO
`1/
`
`X Series
`ms
`NO
`{/
`
`Claim 51
`
`
`
`Case 1:10—cv—11041—NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 6 of 13
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 6 of 13
`
`D.
`
`Phi1ips’s
`
`‘905 Waveform Patent
`
`1) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that ZOLL’s defibrillators
`directly infringe the following claims of the ’905 patent?
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,749,905
`AED Plus
`
`AED Pro
`
`R Series
`
`E Series
`
`M Series
`
`X Series
`
`Claim 4
`Claim 8
`
`NO
`
`YES
`b/
`l/ i
`
`YES
`b/
`t/
`
`NO
`
`YES
`b/
`V
`
`NO
`
`YES
`L/
`L/
`
`NO
`
`YES
`L/
`(/
`
`NO
`
`i YES
`0/
`(/
`
`NO
`
`2) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that others directly infringed
`and that
`the following claims of the ’905 patent through use of ZOLL’s defibrillators,
`ZOLL knowingly contributed to such infringement?
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,749,905
`
`AED Plus
`YES
`NO
`L/
`V
`
`AED Pro
`YES
`NO
`L/
`1/
`
`R Series
`YES 7
`NO
`L/
`(/
`
`E Series
`YES
`NO
`L/
`(/
`
`M Series
`YES
`NO
`L/
`1/
`
`X Series
`YES
`NO
`L/
`V
`
`Claim 4
`Claim 3
`
`3) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that others directly infringed
`the following claims of the ’905 patent through use of ZOLL’s defibrillators, and that
`ZOLL knowingly induced such infringement?
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,749,905
`AED Plus
`
`AED Pro
`
`R Series
`
`E Series
`
`M Series
`
`X Series
`
`Claim 4
`Claim 8
`
`[
`
`YES
`
`NO
`l
`1/
`\
`l L/
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`NO
`1/
`1/
`
`NO
`1/
`V
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`NO
`)/
`1/
`
`YES
`
`NO
`1/
`,/ F
`
`NO
`1/
`:/
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv—11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 7 of 13
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 7 of 13
`
`E.
`
`Philips's
`
`‘978 Waveform Patent
`
`1) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that ZOLL’s defibrillators
`directly infringe the following claims of the ’978 patent?
`
`rU.S. Patent No. 5,836,978
`AED Plus
`J_
`YES
`NO
`
`AED Pro
`YES
`NO
`
`R Series
`YES
`NO
`
`E Series
`YES
`NO
`
`M Series
`YES
`NO
`
`X Series
`YES
`NO
`
`L Claim 4
`Claim 5
`
`L/
`9/
`
`p/
`9/‘
`
`L,
`V’
`
`p/
`5/”
`
`L/
`u/
`
`L/
`,/
`
`2) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that others directly infringed
`and that
`the following claims of the '978 patent through use of ZOLL's defibrillators,
`ZOLL knowingly contributed to such infringement?
`
`[U.s. Patent No. 5,836,978
`AED Pro
`_
`i
`AED Plus
`|
`2Es_'
`NO
`| YES
`NO
`V l
`1/
`1/ '
`l V
`
`Claim 4
`Claim 5
`
`R Series
`YES
`NO
`1 L/
`3/
`
`E Series
`YES
`NO
`[/
`1/
`
`M Series
`YES
`NO
`1/
`V
`
`X Series
`YES ""No
`{/
`V 1
`
`3) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that others directly infringed
`and that
`the following claims of the '978 patent
`through use of ZOLL's defibril_ators,
`ZOLL knowingly induced such infringement?
`
`FU.s. Patent No. 5,836,978
`I
`AED Plus
`YES
`NO
`
`AED Pro
`YES
`NO
`
`R Series
`YES
`NO
`
`E Series
`YES
`NO
`
`M Series
`YES 1
`NO
`
`X Series
`YES
`NO
`
`Claim 4
`.
`Claim 5
`
`l
`
`t/
`L//
`
`L/
`L/’
`
`&/
`1
`5/
`
`F
`
`L/
`b/
`
`L/ 4_
`[ U/
`
`[//
`L//
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv—11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 8 of 13
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 8 of 13
`
`F.
`
`Phi1ips's ‘212 Waveform Patent
`
`Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that ZOLL’s defibrillators directly
`infringe a)
`the means—plus—function Claim 1 or b) Claim 5 of the ’2l2 patent?
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,047,212
`AED Plus
`YES
`
`NO
`
`AED Pro
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`R Series
`YES
`
`NO
`
`X Serie§
`YES
`
`NO
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 5
`
`L/
`n/
`
`b/
`L//
`
`L/
`L/’
`
`FE
`
`L/
`t//
`
`G.
`
`Philips’s ‘7B5 CPR Instructions Patent
`
`Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that ZOLL’s defibrillators directly
`infringe the following claims of the '785 patent?
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,356,785
`AED Plus
`YES
`
`NO
`
`AED Pro
`
`YES
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 7
`
`1/
`L/’
`
`NO
`
`1/
`1/’
`
`E Series
`YES
`
`NO
`
`X Series
`YES
`
`NO
`
`11/
`9/’
`
`[/
`5/
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv—11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 9 of 13
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 9 of 13
`
`II. Patent Invaliditx: Phi1iEs’s Patents
`
`A.
`
`Phi1ips’s ‘460 Self-Test Patent
`
`Has ZOLL proven by clear and convincing evidence that claim 7 of the
`invalid?
`
`‘46O patent is
`
`‘46O Patent Claim 7
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`/
`
`B.
`
`Phi1ips’s ‘374 Self-Test Patent
`
`Has ZOLL proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following claims of the
`patent are invalid?
`
`‘374
`
`‘374 Patent Claim 42 Yes
`
`‘374 Patent Claim 43 Yes
`
`No
`
`No
`
`L/
`
`L/
`
`‘374 Patent Claim
`
`67 Yes
`
`‘374 Patent Claim
`
`68 Yes
`
`‘374 Patent Claim 66 Yes
`
`No
`
`b//
`
`‘374 Patent Claim
`
`73 Yes
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`‘Y1:K
`
`C.
`
`Phi1ips’s ‘454 Waveform Patent
`
`Has ZOLL proven by clear and convincing evidence that claim 51 of
`invalid?
`
`the ‘454 patent
`
`is
`
`‘454 Patent Claim 51 Yes
`
`No
`
`1/
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv—11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 10 of 13
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 10 of 13
`
`D.
`
`Philips's ‘905 Waveform Patent
`
`Has ZOLL proven by clear and Convincing evidence that the following claims of the
`patent are invalid?
`
`‘905 Patent Claim 4
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`lg
`
`‘905 Patent Claim 8
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`E.
`
`Philips’s ‘978 Waveform Patent
`
`Has ZOLL proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following claims of the
`patent are invalid?
`
`‘978 Patent Claim 4
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`1/
`
`‘978 Patent Claim 5
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`F.
`
`Philips’s ‘785 CPR Instructions Patent
`
`Has ZOLL proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following claims of the
`patent are invalid?
`
`‘785 Patent Claim l
`
`Yes
`
`No L//
`
`‘7B5 Patent Claim 7
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`‘905
`
`‘978
`
`‘785
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv—11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 11 of 13
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 11 of 13
`
`A.
`
`ZOLL’s
`
`‘187 Patent
`
`III. Patent Infringement: ZOLL’s Patents
`
`1) Has ZOLL proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Philips’s defibrillators
`directly infringe the following claims of the ’187 patent?
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,391,187
`I’
`Heartstart XL
`us
`|_
`NO
`L/’
`{
`L//
`{
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 4
`
`_
`
`2) Has ZOLL proven by a preponderance of the evidence that others directly infringed the
`following claim of the '187 patent through use of Philips’s defibrillators, and that
`Philips knowingly contributed to such infringement?
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,391,187
`Heartstart XL
`YES
`NO
`
`Claim 4
`
`L//
`
`3) Has ZOLL proven by a preponderance of the evidence that others directly infringed the
`following claim of the ’187 patent
`through use of Philips’s defibrillators, and that
`Philips knowingly induced such infringement?
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,391,187
`Heartstart XL
`
`claim 4
`
`ms
`
`1
`l,
`
`No
`1/
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv—11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 12 of 13
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 12 of 13
`
`B.
`
`ZOLL’s
`
`‘526 Patent
`
`I-[as ZOLL proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Ph1lips’s electrodes infringe the
`following claims of the ‘526 patent?
`
`
`
`Heartstart
`Adult Smart
`Pads
`
`
`
`[u.s. Patent No. 5,330,526
`‘I Heartstart
`Heaxtstart
`FR2 Infant/
`Infant/Child
`Child Pads
`Smart Pads
`
`Adult Plus
`MFE
`Electrode
`Pads
`
`NO
`
`YES
`1/
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`
`
`YES
`1/
`
`
`NO
`NO
`
`V
`
`
`YES 1 NO
`
`YESA7 NO
`i
`‘T
`L/’
`1/
`
`7
`Claim YES
`1
`(/
`L¥i2
`3
`L L//
`8
`F
`1/
`9
`F11 [ V 1_
`F 12
`D/
`19
`L/ Li
`23
`
`24
`25
`
`V
`1/
`
`1//F
`If V
`
`1/
`
`F
`
`V’
`
`L//
`V
`\/
`L/
`L/’
`
`l/
`V
`
`Pediatric
`Mu1ti-
`Adult Radio-
`Heartstart
`Radio-
`Function
`transparentl
`Adult
`transpaz'ent/
`Pediatric
`Reduced Skin
`Preconnect
`
`ME‘!-1 Pads
`Irritation
`Defibrillatinn
`Reduced Skin
`Pads
`E]-e°tt°de5
`Irritation
`
`Pads
`
`YES
`
`
`
`
`
`L//
`V
`
`
`
`L//
`{/
`
`
`
`1/
`
`_12_
`
`
`
`NO
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv—11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 13 of 13
`Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 13 of 13
`
`A.
`
`ZOLL’s
`
`‘187 Patent
`
`IV. Patent Invalidity: ZOLL’s Patents
`
`Has Philips proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following claims of the ‘l87
`patent are invalid?
`
`‘187 Patent Claim l
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`K
`
`‘187 Patent Claim 4
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`(K
`
`B.
`
`ZOLL’s
`
`‘S26 Patent
`
`Has Philips proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following claims of the ‘526
`patent are invalid?
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 1
`
`Yes ____ No _ii:
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 12 Yes ____ No _J:§
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 2
`
`Yes ____ No _l::
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 19 Yes ____ No _L::
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 3
`
`Yes ____ No _i::
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 23 Yes ____ No _ii:
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 8
`
`Yes <___ No __£::
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 24 Yes ____ No _£::
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 9
`
`Yes _i_i No _j::
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 25 Yes __‘i No _£§f/
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 11 Yes
`
`No 4;E:/
`
`THE FOREPERSON WILL SIGN THE VERDICT FORM AND NOTIFY
`YOUR DELIBERATIONS ARE COMPLETE.
`THE MARSHAL IN WRITING THAT THE JURY HAS COME TO A DECISION BUT DO NOT REVEAL YOUR
`VERDICT TO THE MERSHAL.
`THE JURY WILL THEN BE INVITED TO THE COURTROOM TO RETURN ITS
`VERDICT.
`
`Datedzi E(flQ,jj§4__
`
`Jury Foreperson: {L/£g§§C$flC}$q/\$2_E;;%%j“\3
`
`._l3_
`
`