Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 536 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/12 Page 1 of 8
`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 1021
`
`1
`
`ION 1021
`
`
`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 1021
`
`1
`
`ION 1021
`
`
`
`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
`
`
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
