`
` 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.
`
`Philips’s ‘460 Self—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 '460 patent?
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,800,460
`
`
`AED Plus AED Pro
`
`
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`
`
`
`L//
`
`Claim 7
`
`L//
`
`2) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that others directly infringed
`the following claim of the ’460 patent through use of ZOLL’s defibrillators, and that
`ZOLL knowingly contributed to such infringement?
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,800,460
`NO
`
`[
`AED Plus
`AED Pro
`
`YES
`NO
`YES
`
`
`_;/
`
`Claim 7
`
`
`
`
`
`3) Has Philips proven by a preponderance of the evidence that others directly infringed
`the following claim of the ’460 patent through use of ZOLL’s defibrillators, and that
`ZOLL knowingly induced such infringement?
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,800,460
`/
`BED Plus AED Pro
`
`
`
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`
`
`Claim 7
`
`V—
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`AED Plus
`AED Pro
`[
`R Series
`E Series
`M Series
`X Series
`
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`
`Claim 42
`b/
`p/
`
`Claim 43
`p/
`b/
`
`Claim 66
`L/
`V/
`
`Claim 67
`L/
`l/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1/
`
`Claim 68
`
`\/
`
`I/
`
`Claim 73
`
`1/
`
`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
`
`E Series
`___
`r__§ED Plus
`AED Pro
`
`
`
`YES
`NO
`YES
`
`Claim 42
`L/
`
`—Claim 43
`1/
`
`Claim 66
`9/
`
`Claim 67
`L/
`Claim 68
`9/
`Claim 73
`l/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 otheg directly infringed
`the following claims of the ’374 patent through use of ZOLL’s defibrillators, and that
`ZOLL knowingly induced such infringement?
`
`[n.s. Patent No. 5,879,374
`7
`
`RED Plus
`AED Pro
`R Series
`E Series
`M Series
`X Series
`
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YE S
`NO
`YE S
`NO
`YES
`NO
`
`Claim 42
`F 1/
`V
`V
`
`Claim 43
`t/
`(/
`i/
`
`Claim 66
`F 1/
`y
`Claim 67
`l/
`I/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 68
`Claim 73
`
`L 1/
`7/
`
`1/
`1/
`
`1/
`
`
`
`2/
`
`1/
`
`1/
`
`1/
`
`
`
`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
`AED Pro
`R Series
`E Series
`
`M Series
`
`X Series
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NO
`iYES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES 7
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`
`1/
`l/
`l/
`l/
`{/
`l/ }
`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?
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,607,454
`
`
`AED Plus
`AED Pro
`R Series
`E Series
`|
`M Series
`X Series
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`‘_ YES
`I
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`
`
`
`
`
`l L/
`r 1/
`2/
`1/
`l/
`L/
`Claim 51
`
`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
`
`.1
`AED Plus
`AED Pro
`R Series
`|
`E Series
`M Series
`X Series
`
`YES
`NO
`YES
`|_NO
`YES
`|
`NO
`| YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`n/
`‘ 1/
`l
`l/
`l
`l/
`1/
`V
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Philips’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
`
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`7 YES
`NO
`b/
`L/
`b/
`L/
`L/
`0/
`0/
`V/
`p/’
`L//
`(//
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` L//
`
`Claim 4
`Claim 8
`
`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
`AED Pro
`M Series
`X Series
`E Series
`
`
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`L/
`L/
`L/
`L/
`L/
`V
`1/
`V
`1/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V
`
`
`
`
`Claim 4
`Claim 3
`
`R Series
`YES 7
`NO
`L/
`l/
`
`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
`
`YES
`l
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`
`Claim 4
`[
`l
`1/
`1/
`1/
`V
`2/
`1/
`Claim 8
`l L/
`1/
`L/
`1/
`1/ r
`{/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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?
`
`FU. 5. Patent No. 5,836,978
`
`AED Plus
`1_
`AED Pro
`R Series
`E Series
`M Series
`X Series
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`
`
`L Claim 4
`Claim 5
`
`L/
`9/
`
`b/
`9/4
`
`L/
`v/
`
`l/
`z//
`
`L/
`u/
`
`L/
`9/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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?
`
`[v.s. Patent No. 5,836,978
`
`»
`7
`AED Plus
`I
`AED Pro
`R Series
`E Series
`M Series
`X Series
`
`YESi
`NO
`i YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES fi—iuo
`L/
`l
`L/
`i t/
`b/
`L”
`b“
`Claim 4
`.
`Claim 5
`b/ i
`i L/
`0/
`b/
`b/
`0/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 defibrillators,
`ZOLL knowingly induced such infringement?
`
`FU.s. Patent No. 5,836,978
`
`I
`AED Plus
`AED Pro
`R Series
`E Series
`M Series
`X Series
`
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES 1
`NO
`YES
`NO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 4
`Claim 5
`
`l
`
`t/
`b//
`
`L/
`p/
`
`b/
`u/‘
`
`L/
`r L/
`
`L/ 4-
`l b/
`
`[//
`L//
`
`7
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Philips'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 ’212 patent?
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,047,212
`
`AED Plus
`AED Pro
`R Series
`X Series
`
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 5
`
`l/
`1/
`
`1/
`l/
`
`l/
`r L/
`
`L/
`1/
`
`G.
`
`Philips’s ‘785 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
`AED Pro
`E Series
`X Series
`
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 7
`
`V
`l/
`
`l/
`1/
`
`11/
`t/
`
`l/
`l/
`
`
`
`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 Invalidity: PhiliES'S Patents
`
`A.
`
`Philips’s ‘460 Self-Test Patent
`
`Has ZOLL proven by clear and convincing evidence that claim 7 of the
`invalid?
`
`‘460 patent is
`
`‘460 Patent Claim 7
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`b//
`
`B.
`
`Philips’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 44~_ No 7 b//
`
`‘374 Patent Claim
`
`73 Yes
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`l?l:K
`
`C.
`
`Philips’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 L//
`
`
`
`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
`
`‘5
`
`‘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
`
`(/
`
`‘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 1
`
`Yes
`
`No L//
`
`‘785 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
`
`F“
`HeartStart XL
`
`_
`YES
`F_
`No
`L//
`{
`L//
`{
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 4
`
`
`2) Has ZOLL proven by a preponderance of the evidence that 9thers directly infringed the
`and that
`following claim of the '187 patent through use of Philips’s defibrillators,
`Philips knowingly contributed to such infringement?
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,391,187
`Heartstart XL
`YES NO
`
`Claim 4
`
`
`
`
`
`1/
`
`3)
`Has ZOLL proven by a preponderance of the evidence that others directly infringed the
`and that
`following claim of the ’187 patent
`through use of Philips’s defibrillators,
`Philips knowingly induced such infringement?
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,391,187
`
`Heartstart XL
`
`YES
`1
`N0
`Claim 4
`l
`I/
`
`
`
`
`-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
`
`NO
`
`r
`
`{/
`
`1/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`L 1/
`1/
`
`
`8
`L \/
`1/
`
`9
`1/
`f
`y
`
`r11 [
`l/ 1-
`\/
`t 12
`l/
`K/
`19
`l/ L
`1/
`23
`
`
`
`Has ZOLL proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Philips’s electrodes infringe the
`following claims of the ‘526 patent?
`
`
`
`[v.s. Patent No. 5,330,526
`Heartstart
`Adult Radio-
`Multi-
`Heartstart
`Pediatric
`1 HeartStart
`Heartstart
`Adult Plus
`
`
`
`Adult
`transparent/
`Function
`Adult Smart
`Radio-
`FR2 Infant/
`Infant/Child
`MFE
`
`
`
`
`Child Pads
`Smart Pads
`Electrode
`Preconnect
`Reduced Skin
`Pediatric
`Pads
`transparent/
`
`
`
`Pads
`MFE Pads
`Irritation
`Defibrillatinn
`Reduced. Skin
`
`
`Pads
`Electrodes
`Irritation
`
`
`
`7
`
`Pads
`
`Claim YES
`NO
`YES
`NO
`NO
`YES} NO
`YES
`NO
`YES 7 NO
`YES
`NO
`
`
`
`
`1/
`V
`1
`l/
`1/
`, j
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`,_
`
`1/
`
`1/
`
`24
`25
`
`V
`1/
`
`l/
`V
`
`_12_
`
`
`
`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 Invaliditx: ZOLL’s Patents
`
`Has Philips proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following claims of the ‘187
`patent are invalid?
`
`‘187 Patent Claim 1
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`I:
`
`‘187 Patent Claim 4
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`(x
`
`B.
`
`ZOLL’s
`
`‘526 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 _l::
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 12 Yes ____ No _l::
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 2
`
`Yes ____ No _l::
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 19 Yes ____ No _Lé:
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 3
`
`Yes ____ No _l::
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 23 Yes ____ No _11:
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 8
`
`Yes 444_ No __£::
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 24 Yes _4A_ No _£::
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 9
`
`Yes Ai¥i No gig:
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 25 Yes 44‘7 No _£:f/
`
`‘526 Patent Claim 11 Yes
`
`No 44E:/
`
`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 MmRSHAL.
`THE JURY WILL THEN BE INVITED TO THE COURTROOM TO RETURN ITS
`VERDICT.
`
`Dated: ikflfiQ,liigii
`
`Jury Foreperson: (;/C3§§CLflCD$Q/\$2.E;;%%j“\3
`
`
`
`_13_
`
`