`Case 4:09-cv-Ol827 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.
`
`g
`g CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:09—cv-1827
`g Judge Keith P. Ellison
`g
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`QUESTION 1 —— INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(1)(1)
`
`Did WesternGec'o 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:
`
`Claim 23:
`
`jg:
`
`15?
`
`‘967 Patent:
`
`Claim 15:
`
`
`\iE—l?
`
`‘607 Patent:
`
`‘
`
`Claim 15:
`
`\l E5
`
`‘038 Patent:
`
`Claim 14:
`
`\1E§
`
`1
`
`ION 1013
`
`1
`
`ION 1013
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 2 of 8
`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(i)(2)
`
`Did WesternGeco prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ION infringed any of the patent
`claims listed below pursuant to Section 271(f)(2)?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” for each of the listed claims in the spaces provided.
`
`‘520 Patent:
`
`Claim 18:
`
`£5;
`
`Claim 19: E
`
`Claim 23:
`
`fig)
`
`‘967 Patent:
`
`Claim 15:
`
`fig?
`
`‘607 Patent:
`
`Claim 15:
`
`‘165
`
`‘038 Patent:
`
`Claim 14:
`
`j. 55
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 3 of 8
`Case 4:09-cv-Ol827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 3 of 8
`
`QUESTION 3 — INVALIDITY
`
`1A! ‘520 PATENT
`
`Anticipation of the ’52!) Patent
`
`Did ION prove by clear and convincing evidence that US. Patent No. 5,790,472 (“Workman Patent”)
`anticipates Claim 18 of the ’520 Patent?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” in the space provided:
`
`£350
`
`Non-enablement of the ’520 Patent
`
`Did ION prove by clear and convincing evidence any of the following claims of the ’520 patent are not
`enabled?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” for each of the listed claims in the spaces provided:
`
`Claim 18 of the ‘520 Patent El 2
`
`Claim 19 ofthe 4520 Patent N 0
`
`Claim 23 of the ‘520 Patent
`
`1550
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 4 of 8
`Case 4:09-cv-Ol827 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 US. Patent No. 5,790,472
`(“Workman Patent”) and International Application WO 98/28636 (“’636 Patent Publication”) renders
`Claim 15 of the ’967 Patent obvious?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” in the space provided: m0
`
`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
`
`» «-v.-mwum..-ww._ma._......................stWm.w‘ .
`
`_. mm.. M...“ M. Mame. ml.
`
`M
`
`._..._ ,
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 5 of 8
`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 US. Patent No. 5,790,472 (the “Workman
`Patent”) anticipates Claim 15 of the ’607 Patent?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” in the space provided:
`
`[9 U
`
`Obviousness of the ’607 Patent
`
`Did ION prove by clear and convincing evidence that the combination of US. 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 of the ’607 Patent obvious?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” in the space provided: Q U
`
`Non-Enablement of the ’607 Patent
`
`Did ION prove by clear and convincing evidence that Claim 15 of the ’607 Patent is not enabled?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” in the space provided:
`
`b) D
`
`_c.-.m_..‘i_m.~.,i.n.m..ww.cswwm nu».~,\-r_i_mWWWM.m
`
`, M,i..mmirwwwm~ __m.mw.m._. .. "MM,....................
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 6 of 8
`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 of the ’038 patent?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” in the space provided: MO
`
`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:
`
`iQ O
`
`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: NO
`
`77. .riwmwwm-ww,ww.ww*_n_._~..c.__ ,,,,,,,,
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 7 of 8
`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:
`
`‘tEé
`
`MW.“,W.~MWWMWWWWMMW
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 8 of 8
`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
`
`l 016400000‘
`_____}_%_—_
`
`Reasonable Royalty MEL
`
`For the Jury:
`
`By:
`
`
`
`Foreperson
`
`-. ,.
`
`m
`
`Date:
`
`”0 Av V 051/ 2401/1.
`
`.e. -._.,.u..we.‘.g..w_,..._. .
`
`.
`
`m
`
`_
`
`, WW
`
`8
`
`