Case 1:10-cv-11041-NMG Document 559 Filed 12/19/13 Page 1 of 13
`
` 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
`
`
`
` 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_
`
`
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
