Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 1 of 47 PageID 23759
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`I '"; 1· P
`! '·
`\1\...; i'r\ __
`NORTBBRNDISTRICT OF TEXAS
`FILED
`
`OR ' 0 ""1 'L
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C URT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OFT :xi:S·
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`APR -5 2813
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP.,
`§
`§
`RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED,
`§
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS §
`§
`AMERICA LLC, MULTIPLY, INC.,
`FACEBOOK, INC., and
`§
`PHOTOBUCKET CORP.,
`§
`§
`§
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-cv-00367-0
`
`~
`
`Defendants.
`
`JURY CHARGE
`
`LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:
`
`You have heard the evidence presented by the parties and the arguments of their respective
`
`attorneys. It is now my duty to give you the charge in this case. It will be an oral charge and is given
`
`in an effort to assist you in your deliberation in deciding the issues you must decide to reach a fair
`
`and impartial verdict in this case. Perhaps this function of the Court is the most important one that
`
`the Court performs in the trial, so I ask you to pay close attention to my remarks.
`
`As I instructed you at the beginning of trial, you are the exclusive judges of the facts, the
`
`credibility of the evidence, and the weight to be given the testimony of the witnesses.
`
`You are to perform your duty without bias or prejudice to any party. The law does not permit
`
`jurors to be governed by sympathy or prejudice. Corporations and all other persons are equal before
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 2 of 47 PageID 23760
`
`the law and must be treated as equals in a court of justice. The Court and the parties expect that you
`
`will carefully and impartially consider all of the evidence, follow the law as I will give it to you, and
`
`reach a just verdict. You are instructed that all persons, including Summit 6, and the Samsung
`
`Defendants in this case, stand equal before the law, and are to be dealt with as equals in this Court.
`
`During your deliberations, you must not communicate with or provide any information to
`
`anyone by any means about this case. You may not use any electronic device or media, such as the
`
`telephone, a cell phone, smart phone, iPhone, Blackberry or computer, the Internet, any Internet
`
`service, any text or instant messaging service, any internet chat room, blog, or website such as
`
`Facebook, MySpace, Linkedin, YouTube or Twitter, to communicate to anyone any information
`
`about this case or to conduct any research about this case until I accept your verdict. In other words,
`
`you cannot talk to anyone on the phone, correspond with anyone, or electronically communicate with
`
`anyone about this case. You can only discuss the case in the jury room with your fellow jurors
`
`during deliberations. I expect you will inform me as soon as you become aware of another juror's
`
`violation of these instructions.
`
`You may not use these electronic means to investigate or communicate about the case
`
`because it is important that you decide this case based solely on the evidence presented in this
`
`courtroom.
`
`Information on the internet or available through social media might be wrong,
`
`incomplete, or inaccurate. You are only permitted to discuss the case with your fellow jurors during
`
`deliberations because they have seen and heard the same evidence you have. In our judicial system,
`
`it is important that you are not influenced by anything or anyone outside of this courtroom.
`
`Otherwise, your decision may be based on information known only by you and not your fellow jurors
`
`or the parties in the case. This would unfairly and adversely impact the judicial process.
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 3 of 47 PageID 23761
`
`I will now briefly review the contentions of the parties and give you some additional
`
`instructions and definitions that will guide you in deciding the issues or facts that you must resolve
`
`in this case.
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 4 of 47 PageID 23762
`
`I.
`
`SUMMIT 6'S CLAIMS AND SAMSUNG'S DEFENSES
`
`The patent claims in issue are Claims 40, 44, 45, 46 and 49 of U.S. Patent 7,765,482, which
`
`has been referred to as "the '482 Patent." I will refer to the '482 Patent as the Patent-in-Suit.
`
`The Plaintiff, Summit 6, LLC, contends that Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`
`Defendant Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC Gointly "the Samsung Defendants") have
`
`infringed Claims 40, 44, 45, 46 and 49 of the '482 Patent by making, using, or inducing their
`
`customers or end-users to use MMS technology to perform each of the steps or requirements of those
`
`claims. Summit 6 contends it is entitled to damages to compensate for the Samsung Defendants'
`
`alleged infringement in the form of a reasonable royalty.
`
`The Samsung Defendants each deny Summit 6's claims. The Samsung Defendants contend
`
`they do not infringe, and do not induce their customers or end-users to infringe, the asserted claims
`
`of the '482 Patent. The Samsung Defendants contend the asserted claims of the '482 patent are
`
`invalid. As a result, the Samsung Defendants contend that Summit 6 is not entitled to any damages.
`
`Your job is to decide whether each of the Samsung Defendants has infringed any of the
`
`asserted claims and whether each of the asserted claims is invalid. If you decide that any claim of
`
`the '482 patent has been infringed by the Samsung Defendants and is not invalid, you will then need
`
`to decide any money damages to be awarded to Summit 6 from the Samsung Defendants to
`
`compensate Summit 6 for the infringement.
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 5 of 47 PageID 23763
`
`II.
`
`BURDENS OF PROOF
`
`Summit 6 bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the Samsung
`
`Defendants infringed the asserted claims of the' 482 Patent. In other words, Summit 6 must show
`
`that the Samsung Defendants' infringement is more likely true than not true.
`
`Summit 6 also has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence for the amount
`
`of damages caused by the Samsung Defendants' infringement.
`
`The Samsung Defendants bear the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the
`
`asserted claims of the' 482 Patent are invalid.
`
`To review, "preponderance of the evidence" means that you must be persuaded by the
`
`evidence that the claim is more likely true than not true.
`
`Clear and convincing evidence is a higher standard than proof by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence. Clear and convincing evidence means that the evidence leaves you with a firm belief or
`
`clear conviction that the facts are as the party contends. Nevertheless, the clear and convincing
`
`evidence standard is not as high as the burden of proof applied in a criminal case, which is "beyond
`
`a reasonable" doubt.
`
`In deciding whether any fact has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear
`
`and convincing evidence, you may, unless otherwise instructed, consider the testimony of all
`
`witnesses, regardless of who may have called them, and all exhibits received in evidence, regardless
`
`of who may have produced them.
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 6 of 47 PageID 23764
`
`CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE
`
`You must consider only the evidence in this case.
`
`Evidence consists of:
`
`1)
`
`2)
`
`3)
`
`the sworn testimony of any witness;
`
`the exhibits which are received into evidence; and
`
`any facts to which the lawyers have agreed.
`
`The following are not evidence:
`
`1)
`
`2)
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`disregard; and
`
`the demonstrative exhibits which are not received into evidence;
`
`arguments and statements by lawyers;
`
`questions and objections by lawyers;
`
`testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that you are instructed to
`
`5)
`
`anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not in session.
`
`However, you may draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and admitted exhibits
`
`as you feel are justified in the light of common experience. You may make deductions and reach
`
`conclusions that reason and common sense lead you to make from the testimony and evidence.
`
`Unless the Court instructs you otherwise, the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient
`
`to prove any fact, even if a greater number of witnesses may have testified to the contrary, if after
`
`considering all the other evidence you believe that single witness.
`
`There are two types of evidence you may consider. One is direct evidence-such as
`
`testimony of an eyewitness. The other is indirect or circumstantial evidence-the proof of
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 7 of 47 PageID 23765
`
`circumstances that tend to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of certain other facts. The
`
`law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence.
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 8 of 47 PageID 23766
`
`CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
`
`In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to.believe and
`
`which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of it, or none of
`
`it. Proof of a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify about it.
`
`In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account:
`
`( 1)
`
`the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified
`
`to;
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`( 6)
`
`(7)
`
`the witness's memory;
`
`the witness's manner while testifying;
`
`the witness's interest in the outcome of the case and any bias or prejudice;
`
`whether other evidence contradicted the witness's testimony;
`
`the reasonableness of the witness's testimony in light of all the evidence; and
`
`any other factors that bear on believability.
`
`The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of
`
`witnesses who testify about it.
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 9 of 47 PageID 23767
`
`DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
`
`Certain testimony was presented to you through a deposition. A deposition is the sworn,
`
`recorded answers to questions asked a witness in advance of the trial. Under some circumstances,
`
`if a witness cannot be present to testify from the witness stand, that witness's testimony may be
`
`presented, under oath, in the form of a deposition. Some time before this trial, attorneys representing
`
`the parties in this case questioned this witness under oath. A court reporter was present and recorded
`
`the testimony. The questions and answers were read to you or a video of the deposition was shown
`
`to you. This deposition testimony is entitled to the same consideration and is to be judged by you
`
`as to credibility as if the witness had been present and had testified from the witness stand in court.
`
`EXPERT WITNESSES
`
`When knowledge of technical subject matter may be helpful to the jury, a person who has
`
`special training or experience in that technical field-called an expert witness-is permitted to state
`
`his/her opinion on those technical matters.
`
`Opinion testimony should be judged just like any other testimony. You may accept it or
`
`reject it, and give it as much weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness's education and
`
`experience, the reasons given for the opinions, and all the other evidence of the case.
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 10 of 47 PageID 23768
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`Certain exhibits shown to you were illustrations. We call these types of exhibits
`
`"demonstrative exhibits." Demonstrative exhibits are a party's descriptions, pictures, and models
`
`to describe something involved in this trial. Demonstrative exhibits are not evidence unless admitted
`
`by the Court. If your recollection of the evidence differs from a demonstrative exhibit, rely on your
`
`recollection.
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`Before you can decide many of the issues in this case, you will need to understand the role
`
`of patent "claims." The patent claims are the numbered sentences at the end of each patent. The
`
`claims are important because the words of the claims, as interpreted by the Court, are what define
`
`the boundaries of the invention. The figures and text in the rest of the patent provide a description
`
`and at least one example of the invention (sometimes referred to as a "preferred embodiment"), and
`
`they provide a context for the claims. Claim terms are to be read and understood in the context of
`
`the particular claims in which they appear and in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`specification. But it is the claims themselves, as interpreted by the Court, that define how broad or
`
`narrow the patent's coverage is. Therefore, what a patent covers depends, in tum, on what each of
`
`its claims cover.
`
`HOW A CLAIM DEFINES WHAT IT COVERS
`
`I will now explain further how a claim defines what it covers.
`
`A claim sets forth, in words, a set of requirements. Each claim sets forth its requirements in
`
`a single sentence. If a method satisfies each of these requirements, then it is covered by the claim.
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 11 of 47 PageID 23769
`
`There can be several claims in a patent. Each claim may be narrower or broader than another
`
`claim by setting forth more or fewer requirements. The coverage of a patent is assessed on a
`
`claim-by-claim basis. In patent law, the requirements of a claim are often referred to as "claim
`
`elements" or "claim limitations." When a method meets all of the requirements of a claim, the claim
`
`is said to "cover" that method, and the method is said to "fall within the scope" of that claim. In
`
`other words, a claim covers a method where each of the claim elements or limitations is present in
`
`that method.
`
`Sometimes the words in a patent claim are difficult to understand, and therefore it is difficult
`
`to understand what requirements these words impose. It is my job to explain to you the meanings
`
`of the words in the claims and the requirements those words impose. You must apply the meaning
`
`I give the patent claims to both your decision on infringement and your decision on validity. I will
`
`now provide to you my definitions of certain claim terms and will instruct you on how those terms
`
`are to be understood when deciding the issues of infringement and validity in this case. You must
`
`accept my definitions of these words in the claims as being correct.
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 12 of 47 PageID 23770
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`I have construed or interpreted certain of the terms of the asserted claims to have the
`
`following meanings, which you must accept and apply in deciding the issues presented to you in this
`
`case:
`
`(1) "pre-processing" means "modifying the [media object data I digital content data], as
`
`opposed to data merely associated with the [media object I digital content], at the client or local
`
`device in preparation for transmission to a remote device";
`
`(2) "pre-processing parameters" means "values directing the pre-processing";
`
`(3) "placement of ... digital content into a specified form" means "modifying the digital
`
`content data to meet certain specifications";
`
`(4) "device separate from said client device" means "device other than said client device";
`
`(5) "user information" means "information related to a person"
`
`(6) "publication" means "making publicly available";
`
`(7) "provided to said client device by a device separate from said client device" means
`
`"provided to said client device by a device other than said client device"; and
`
`(8) in "pre-processing in accordance with one or more pre-processing parameters that have
`
`been stored in memory of said client device" and similar terms, "controlling" means "directing"; "in
`
`accordance with" means "to conform to."
`
`All other words of the claims are given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the
`
`meaning a term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of
`
`invention.
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 13 of 47 PageID 23771
`
`You have been provided with a copy of the '482 Patent and a copy of the claim term
`
`definitions, and you may use them in your deliberations.
`
`13
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 14 of 47 PageID 23772
`
`"COMPRISING" CLAIMS
`
`I will now explain how to consider a situation where an asserted claim uses the term
`
`"comprising." In this instance, Claim 40 of the '482 Patent uses the word "comprising." When a
`
`claim uses the word comprising, it means including or containing. A claim that uses the word
`
`comprising or comprises is not limited to methods having only the elements or steps that are recited
`
`in the claim but also covers methods that add additional elements or steps.
`
`If you find that the Samsung Defendants' methods include all of the elements or steps of a
`
`claim, the fact that the Samsung Defendants' methods might include additional components or steps
`
`would not avoid infringement of the claim that uses "comprising" language.
`
`I will now instruct you on what is meant by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 15 of 47 PageID 23773
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art is a person with a specific level of education, training,
`
`and experience in the field such that they understand what is being taught by a patent based on such
`
`background. It is up to you to decide the level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. You
`
`should consider all of the evidence introduced at trial in making this decision, including the
`
`educational level and experience of people working in the field, the types of problems encountered
`
`in the field, the solutions found for those problems, and the sophistication of the technology in the
`
`field.
`
`Summit 6 contends that, for this case, the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`field is a person who, as of July 1998 through July 1999, would have had:
`
`(a)
`
`a Bachelors of Science in computer science or similar discipline and at least 2 years
`
`of experience in software design and development related to digital file manipulation,
`
`distribution, and/or storage, or
`
`(b)
`
`at least 5 to 7 years of experience in software design and development related to
`
`digital file manipulation, distribution, and/or storage.
`
`The Samsung Defendants contend that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field for
`
`purposes of this case is a hypothetical person who, as of July 1999:
`
`(a)
`
`had earned an accredited Bachelor's degree or higher in electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, computer science, or an equivalent education or level of
`
`knowledge, and 3-5 years of software design and development experience, including
`
`experience related to Internet-based applications and/or digital media applications;
`
`or
`
`15
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 16 of 47 PageID 23774
`
`(b)
`
`at least 5-7 years of software design and development expenence, including
`
`experience related to Internet-based applications and/or digital media applications.
`
`Next, I will instruct you on how to determine whether the '482 Patent has been infringed by
`
`the Samsung Defendants.
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 17 of 47 PageID 23775
`
`DETERMINING INFRINGEMENT
`
`Once a patent has issued, infringement can occur if a person or entity, without the owner's
`
`permission, makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells the patented invention anywhere in the United States
`
`during a period of 20 years measured from the filing date of the earliest underlying patent
`
`application. In this case, the 20-year exclusivity period of the '482 Patent ends July 21, 2019.
`
`Summit 6 has alleged that the Samsung Defendants have directly and indirectly infringed the
`
`'482 Patent. To prove infringement of any claim, Summit 6 has the burden to persuade you by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that the Defendan1Shav'infringed that claim.
`
`Keep in mind that only the claims of a patent can be infringed. You must compare the
`
`asserted patent claims, as I have defined each of them, to an accused method to determine whether
`
`or not there is infringement. When comparing the claims to a method, you must consider each claim
`
`and each method individually. Therefore, there may be infringement as to one claim but no
`
`infringement as to another. You must reach your decision regarding infringement based on my
`
`instructions about the meaning and scope of the claims as they have been defined, the legal
`
`requirements for infringement, and the evidence presented to you by the parties. I will now describe
`
`for you the legal requirements for infringement.
`
`17
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 18 of 47 PageID 23776
`
`INFRINGEMENT GENERALLY
`
`I will first instruct you on what infringement means in a general sense. Then I will identify
`
`several key elements that make up infringement. In order to infringe a patent claim, a method must
`
`meet all the requirements of a claim. A claim limitation is present if it exists in a Samsung
`
`Defendant's method as I have explained the language to you or, ifl did not explain it, applying its
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, which is the meaning a term would have to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in question at the time of invention.
`
`In determining whether the claims of the patent are infringed, you should consider each of
`
`the asserted claims of the '482 patent separately. Summit 6 need only establish by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence that one claim is infringed. Because the claims are analyzed separately, there may
`
`be infringement as to one claim and not as to another.
`
`18
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 19 of 47 PageID 23777
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`
`A patent claim is directly infringed if a Defendant's methods satisfies each and every
`
`requirement of that patent claim. If a Defendant's methods does not satisfy one or more requirements
`
`of a claim, that Defendant does not infringe that claim.
`
`The accused methods should be compared to the invention described in each patent claim it
`
`is alleged to infringe. The same element of the accused methods may satisfy more than one
`
`requirement of a claim.
`
`I will now instruct you on the specific rules you must follow to determine whether Summit
`
`6 has proven that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC
`
`has infringed one or more of the patent claims involved in this case.
`
`19
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 20 of 47 PageID 23778
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`
`You must decide whether Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. or Samsung Telecommunications
`
`America, LLC performed, in the United States, all of the steps of a method covered by claims 40,
`
`44, 45, 46 and 49 of the' 482 patent. You must compare each claim to each of the accused Samsung
`
`Defendants' methods to determine whether every step of the claim is performed by the accused
`
`method.
`
`For purposes of direct infringement, Summit 6 need not prove that a Samsung Defendant had
`
`the intent to infringe the patent or that it knew its acts infringed the patent. Good faith is not a
`
`defense to a claim of direct infringement.
`
`To prove direct infringement as to the Samsung Defendants, Summit 6 must prove by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that the Samsung Defendants practiced a method in the United States
`
`that meets all of the requirements of a claim under the '482 patent. If the methods of the Samsung
`
`Defendants omit any step recited in Summit 6's asserted patent claim, the Samsung Defendants do
`
`not directly infringe that claim.
`
`20
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 21 of 47 PageID 23779
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF DEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`So far, my instructions on infringement have applied to what are known as independent
`
`claims. The Patent-in-Suit also contains dependent claims. Each dependent claim refers to an
`
`independent claim. A dependent claim includes each of the requirements of the independent claim
`
`to which it refers and one or more additional requirements.
`
`In order to find infringement of a dependent claim of the patent, you must first determine
`
`whether the independent claim to which the dependent claim refers has been infringed. If you decide
`
`that the independent claim has not been infringed, then the dependent claim cannot have been
`
`infringed. If you decide that the independent claim has been infringed, you must then separately
`
`determine whether each additional requirement of the dependent claim has also been included in the
`
`accused method. If each additional requirement has been included, then the dependent claim has
`
`been infringed.
`
`Summit 6 must prove by a preponderance of evidence that a patent claim has been infringed.
`
`21
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 22 of 47 PageID 23780
`
`INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Summit 6 alleges that the Samsung Defendants each indirectly infringed the patent. There
`
`are two types of indirect infringement: inducing infringement and contributory infringement. The
`
`act of encouraging or inducing others to infringe a patent is called "inducing infringement." The act
`
`of contributing to the infringement of others by, for example, supplying them with components for
`
`use in the patented invention, is called "contributory infringement." Summit 6 has alleged
`
`inducement and contributory infringement against the Samsung Defendants in this case.
`
`22
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 23 of 47 PageID 23781
`
`INDUCING PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`A party induces patent infringement if it purposefully causes, urges, or encourages another
`
`to infringe the claims of a patent. Inducing infringement cannot occur unintentionally. This is
`
`different from direct infringement, which can occur unintentionally.
`
`To prove that either of the Samsung Defendants induced patent infringement, Summit 6 must
`
`prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:
`
`(1)
`
`the Samsung Defendant actively encouraged or instructed another person or persons
`
`on how to perform a method in a way that infringes at least one patent claim;
`
`(2)
`
`the encouraged or instructed acts constitute direct infringement of that claim;
`
`(3)
`
`the Samsung Defendant knew of the patent, and knew that the encouraged or
`
`instructed acts would result in infringement of at least one patent claim;
`
`( 4)
`
`the Samsung Defendant had the intent to encourage or instruct infringement by
`
`someone else; and
`
`(5)
`
`the encouraged acts were actually carried out by someone else.
`
`Evidence of active steps taken to encourage direct infringement, such as advertising an
`
`infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use may be considered in light of all the
`
`circumstances in determining whether a Samsung Defendant in this case had specific intent to cause
`
`others to infringe. In order to establish active inducement of infringement, it is not sufficient that
`
`the alleged direct infringer itself directly infringes the claim. Nor is it sufficient that the Defendant
`
`was aware of the act(s) by the alleged direct infringer that allegedly constitute the direct
`
`infringement. Rather, you must find that a Defendant specifically intended the alleged direct
`
`infringer to infringe the patent.
`
`23
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 24 of 47 PageID 23782
`
`If you do not find by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused Defendant meets these
`
`specific intent requirements, then you must find that the accused infringer has not actively induced
`
`the alleged infringement.
`
`24
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 25 of 47 PageID 23783
`
`CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT
`
`Contributory infringement occurs when a Defendant who has knowledge of the patent
`
`supplies a part, or a component, to another for use in a product, machine, or process that infringes
`
`a patent claim. Summit 6 must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that contributory
`
`infringement occurred.
`
`Contributory infringement arises only if the one who received the component infringes a
`
`patent claim. The part or component must also have the following three characteristics.
`
`(1)
`
`the part or component must be a material, or significant, part of the invention;
`
`(2)
`
`the part or component must be especially made or adapted for use in a way that
`
`infringes at least one claim of the patent, and the Defendant who supplies it must
`
`know that the component was especially made for that use; and
`
`(3)
`
`the part or component must not have a significant non-infringing use.
`
`A component that has a number of non-infringing uses is often referred to as a staple or
`
`commodity article. Supplying such a staple or commodity article is not contributory infringement
`
`even if the person receiving or buying the article uses it in an infringing way.
`
`25
`
`Exhibit 2003
`Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC
`IPR2015-00686, Summit 6 LLC
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00367-O Document 562 Filed 04/05/13 Page 26 of 47 PageID 23784
`
`INVALIDITY - GENERALLY
`
`The Samsung Defendants contend that certain asserted claims of Summit 6's Patent-in-Suit
`
`are not valid. Patent invalidity is a defense to patent infringement. Specifically, the Samsung
`
`Defendants contend that Claims 40, 44, 45, 46 and 49 of the '482 Patent are invalid. Even though
`
`the PTO examiner has allowed the claims of a patent, you have the ultimate responsibility for
`
`deciding whether the claims of the patent are invalid.
`
`I will now instruct you on the invalidity issues you should consider. As you consider these
`
`issues, remember that each Defendant bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that the claims are invalid.
`
`Each claim of a patent issued by the United States Patent Office is entitled to a presumption
`
`of validity. In order to overcome the presumption of validity, the Samsung Defendants must show
`
`by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims of the