`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`§ §
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL.,
`
`§ CAUSE NO. 6:13-CV-259
`§
`
`§ §
`
`§ §
`
`§
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`In answering these questions, you are to follow all of the instructions I have given you in
`
`the Court’s Charge.
`
`1.
`
`Did Uniloc prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Origin Entitlements
`
`infringes claim 19 of the ’216 patent?
`Yes
`55/__‘ (proved)
`
`No
`
`(not proved)
`
`Please continue to Question 2.
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006 Page 1
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006 Page 1
`
`
`
`Case 6:13-cv-00259-LED Document 91 Filed 12/05/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1601
`
`2.
`
`Did Uniloc prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it marked substantially
`
`all of the products it made, offered for sale, or sold under the ’216 patent, and that Uniloc made
`
`reasonable efforts to ensure that all of its licensees who made, offered for sale, or sold products
`
`under the ’2 1 6 patent marked the products?
`
`L. (proved)
`
`NO
`
`(not proved)
`
`then you should answer Question 3 for
`If you have answered ‘Yes” to Questions 1 and 2,
`infringement, ifany, between August 8, 2012 and September 21 2013 when the patent expired.
`
`If you have answered‘Yes’ to Question 1 and ""No to Question 2 then you should answer
`Question 3 for infringement If any, between March 21,2013 and September 21, 2013 when the
`patent expired
`
`Ifyou have answered “No ” to Question 1, please do not answer Question 3.
`
`3.
`
`What sum of money, if paid now in cash, do you find from a preponderance of the
`
`evidence would fairly and reasonably compensate Unjloc for infringement of claim 19 of the
`
`’216 patent by EA?
`
`fig $63 e2 5, 0a
`
`
`
`ore
`
`rson Signature
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006 Page 2
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006 Page 2
`
`
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
