`
`
`Ex. PGS 1014
`
`
`
`EX. PGS 1014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 1 of 8
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`.
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`WESTERNGECO L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:09-cv-1827
`§
`§ Judge Keith P. Ellison
`§
`§
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`QUESTION 1- INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(l)
`
`Did WesternGeco prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ION infringed any of the patent
`claims listed below pursuant to Section 271(f)(1)?
`
`Answer "Yes" or "No" for each of the listed claims in the spaces provided below.
`
`'520 Patent:
`
`Claim 19:
`
`Claim23:
`
`'967 Patent:
`
`Claim 15:
`
`'607 Patent:
`
`Claim 15:
`
`'038 Patent:
`
`Claim 14:
`
`Ex. PGS 1014
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 2 of 8
`
`QUESTION 2- INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2)
`
`Did WesternGeco prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ION infringed any of the patent
`claims listed below pursuant to Section 271(1)(2)?
`
`Answer "Yes" or "No" for each ofthe listed claims in the spaces provided.
`
`'520 Patent:
`
`Claim 18:
`
`Claim 19:
`
`Claim 23:
`
`'967 Patent:
`
`'lt:"S
`
`'\SS
`
`']E.:'S
`
`Claim 15:
`
`'i~S
`
`'607 Patent:
`
`Claim 15:
`
`'\S'S
`
`'038 Patent:
`
`Claim 14:
`
`:j~S
`
`Ex. PGS 1014
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 3 of 8
`
`QUESTION 3 -INvALIDITY
`
`(A) '520 PATENT
`
`Anticipation of the '520 Patent
`
`Did ION prove by clear and convincing evidence that U.S. Patent No. 5,790,472 ("Workman Patent")
`anticipates Claim 18 ofthe '520 Patent?
`
`Answer "Yes" or "No" in the space provided: ND
`
`Non-enablement of the '520 Patent
`
`Did ION prove by clear and convincing evidence any of the following claims ofthe '520 patent are not
`enabled?
`
`Answer "Yes" or "No" for each ofthe listed claims in the spaces provided:
`
`Claim 18 ofthe '520 Patent NO
`
`Claim 19 of the '520 Patent
`
`J-J 0
`
`Claim 23 ofthe '520 Patent NO
`
`Ex. PGS 1014
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 4 of 8
`
`(B) '967 PATENT
`
`Obviousness of the '967 Patent
`
`Did ION prove by clear and convincing evidence that that the combination of U.S. Patent No. 5,790,472
`("Workman Patent") and International Application WO 98/28636 ('"636 Patent Publication") renders
`Claim 15 ofthe '967 Patent obvious?
`
`Answer "Yes" or "No" in the space provided: N D
`
`Non-enablement of the '967 Patent
`
`Did ION prove by clear and convincing evidence that Claim 15 of the '967 Patent is not enabled?
`
`Answer "Yes" or "No" in the space provided: N D
`
`Ex. PGS 1014
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 5 of 8
`
`(C) '607 PATENT
`
`Anticipation of the '607 Patent
`
`Did ION prove by clear and convincing evidence that U.S. Patent No. 5,790,472 (the "Workman
`Patent") anticipates Claim 15 ofthe '607 Patent?
`
`Answer "Yes" or "No" in the space provided: N 0
`
`Obviousness of the '607 Patent
`
`Did ION prove by clear and convincing evidence that the combination of U.S. Patent No. 5,790,472
`(referred to as the "Workman Patent") and International Application WO 98/28636 (referred to as the
`"'636 Patent Publication") renders Claim 15 ofthe '607 Patent obvious?
`
`Answer "Yes" or "No" in the space provided: N D
`
`Non-Enablement of the '607 Patent
`Did ION prove by clear and convincing evidence that Claim 15 ofthe '607 Patent is not enabled?
`
`Answer "Yes" or "No" in the space provided:
`
`Ex. PGS 1014
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 6 of 8
`
`(D) '038 PATENT
`
`Anticipation of the '038 Patent
`
`Did ION prove by clear and convincing evidence that International Application WO 00/20895
`("Hillesund '895 Application) anticipates Claim 14 ofthe '038 patent?
`
`Answer "Yes" or "No" in the space provided: ND
`
`Obviousness of the '038 Patent
`
`Did ION prove by clear and convincing evidence that International Application WO 00/20895
`("Hillesund '895 Application) renders Claim 14 of the '038 patent obvious?
`
`Answer "Yes" or "No" in the space provided: N 0
`
`Non-Enablement of the '038 Patent
`
`Did ION prove by clear and convincing evidence that Claim 14 of the '038 Patent is not enabled?
`
`Answer "Yes" or "No" in the space provided: ~D
`
`Ex. PGS 1014
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 7 of 8
`
`QUESTION 4- WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`Did WesternGeco prove by clear and convincing evidence that ION actually knew, or it was so
`obvious that ION should have known, that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent
`claim?
`
`Answer "Yes" or "No" in the space provided:
`
`·-·---·--··-·--------------
`
`Ex. PGS 1014
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 8 of 8
`
`QUESTION 5- DAMAGES
`
`If any claim is infringed and not invalid, what damages do you find WesternGeco has proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that it suffered as a result of ION's infringement? Any amount
`found should be written in dollars and cents.
`
`Lost Profits
`
`Reasonable Royalty
`
`For the Jury:
`
`By:
`
`Foreperson
`
`Date:
`
`Ex. PGS 1014
`
`