Case3:07-cv-00567-MMC Document993 Filed08/06/09 Page1 of 6
`
`UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`Case No. C07-00567
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., a Minnesota
`corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`AGA MEDICAL CORPORATION, a
`Minnesota corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`l , .
`
`VERDICT FORM
`CASE NO. C07-00S67
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 2005
`Edwards v. Medtronic
`IPR2014-00362
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 2005
`Cook v. Medtronic
`IPR2019-00123
`Page 00001
`
`
`
`UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`Case No. C07-00567
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., a Minnesota
`corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`AGA MEDICAL CORPORATION, a
`Minnesota corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`l , .
`
`VERDICT FORM
`CASE NO. C07-00S67
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 2005
`Edwards v. Medtronic
`IPR2014-00362
`
`Medtronic Exhibit 2005
`Cook v. Medtronic
`IPR2019-00123
`Page 00001
`
`
`
`Case3:07-cv-00567-MMC Document993 Filed08/06/09 Page2 of 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`When answering the following questions and filling out this Verdict Form, please follow
`
`the directions provided throughout the form. Your answer to each question must be unanimous.
`
`Some of the questions contain legal terms that are defined and explained in detail in the Jury
`
`Instructions. Please refer to the Jury Instructions if you are unsure about the meaning or usage of
`
`any legal term that appears in the questions below.
`
`We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them
`
`under the instructions of this court as our verdict in this case.
`
`1.
`
`Direct Infringement of '141 Patent
`
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`Has Medtronic proven by a preponderance of the evidence that all models and sizes of the
`
`12 AGA Occluder products when subjected to the load test by AGA meet every requirement of the
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`following claim? Please answer "YES" or "NO."
`
`'141 Patent
`
`Claim 18 Yes/
`
`No
`
`Please answer the next question.
`
`2a.
`
`Contributory Infringement of '141 Patent
`
`For all models and sizes of the AGA Occluder products, has Medtronic proven by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that AGA contributes to the infringement of any of the following
`
`claims? Please answer "YES" or "NO."
`
`'141 Patent
`
`Claim 1 Yes/
`
`Claim 2
`
`Yes·/
`
`Claim 5
`
`Yes/
`
`Claim 17 Yes/
`
`Claim 18 Yes~
`Claim 21
`Yes
`
`Please answer the next question.
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`-2-
`
`VERDICT FORM
`CASE NO. C07-00567
`
`IPR2019-00123 Page 00002
`
`
`
`Case3:07-cv-00567-MMC Document993 Filed08/06/09 Page3 of 6
`
`2b.
`
`Contributory Infringement of '141 Patent
`
`For all models and sizes of the AGA Vascular Plug products, has Medtronic proven by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that AGA contributes to the infringement of any of the following
`
`claims? Please answer "YES" or "NO."
`
`'141 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`
`Yes/
`
`Claim 17
`
`Yes/
`
`No
`
`No
`
`Please answer the next question.
`
`3.
`
`Contributory Infringement of '957 Patent
`
`For all models and sizes of the following AGA products: AMPLATZER® Septal
`
`Occluder, Multi-Fenestrated Septa! Occluder, PFO Occluder, Duct Occluder I, Membranous VSD
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12 Occluder, Muscular VSD Occluder, P.I. Muscular VSD Occluder, and Vascular Plug I, has
`
`13 Medtronic proven by a preponderance of the evidence that AGA contributes to the infringement
`
`of any of the following claims? Please answer "YES" or "NO."
`
`'957 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`
`Yes/
`
`Claim 5
`
`Yes/
`
`Claim 6
`
`Yes/
`
`Claim 10 Yes/
`
`Claim 11 Yes/
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`Claim 16 Yes/
`
`Claim 17 Yes/
`
`No - -
`No
`
`Please answer the next question.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`- 3 -
`
`VERDICT FORM
`CASE NO. C07-00567
`
`IPR2019-00123 Page 00003
`
`
`
`Case3:07-cv-00567-MMC Document993 Filed08/06/09 Page4 of 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`4.
`
`Infringement Through the Supply of Components of the Patented Invention
`to Another Country
`
`Has Medtronic proven by a preponderance of the evidence that AGA supplied
`
`components of the patented invention to others in another country for all models and sizes of the
`
`following AGA products: AMPLATZER® Septal Occluder, Multi-Fenestrated Septal Occluder,
`
`PFO Occluder, Duct Occluder I, Membranous VSD Occluder, Muscular VSD Occluder, P.I.
`
`7 Muscular VSD Occluder, and Vascular Plug I? Please answer "YES" or "NO."
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`'957 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`
`Yes/
`
`Claim 5
`
`Yes_L
`
`Claim 6
`
`Yes/
`
`Claim 10 Yes/
`
`Claim 11 Yes/
`
`Claim 16 Yes/
`
`Claim 17 Yes/
`
`Please answer the next question.
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No - -
`No
`
`INVALIDITY DEFENSES
`
`5.
`
`Anticipation
`
`Has AGA proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims of the
`
`20
`
`'141 and '957 patents were anticipated, or in other words, not new? Please answer "YES" or
`
`"NO."
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`'141 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 5
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`No/,.
`
`No/
`
`No/
`
`Claim 17
`
`Yes_
`
`No /
`
`Claim 18
`
`Claim 21
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`No~
`No
`
`-4-
`
`VERDICT FORM
`CASE NO. C07-00567
`
`IPR2019-00123 Page 00004
`
`
`
`Case3:07-cv-00567-MMC Document993 Filed08/06/09 Page5 of 6
`
`'957 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 5
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 10
`
`Claim 11
`
`Claim 16
`
`Claim 17
`
`Yes
`-
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`No /
`
`No/
`
`No/
`
`No/
`
`No/
`
`No / - -
`
`No /
`
`Please answer the next question.
`
`6.
`
`Obviousness
`
`Has A GA proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the claims of the '141 and
`
`'957 patents would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention? Please answer "YES" or "NO."
`
`'141 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim2
`
`Claim 5
`
`Claim 17
`
`Claim 18
`
`Claim21
`
`'957 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 5
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 10
`
`Claim 11
`
`Claim 16
`
`Claim 17
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`-
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`No/
`
`No/
`
`No/
`_L_
`No
`No /
`No/
`
`No /
`No/
`No /
`No ✓
`
`No/
`No ✓
`No /
`
`- 5 -
`
`VERDICT FORM
`CASE NO. C07-00567
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IPR2019-00123 Page 00005
`
`
`
`Case3:07-cv-00567-MMC Document993 Filed08/06/09 Page6 of 6
`
`If you found that any claims of the '141 or '957 patents have been infringed and are not
`
`invalid, please answer the following two questions.
`
`DAMAGES
`
`7.
`
`infringing sales?
`
`What is the reasonable royalty rate (in%) that should be applied to AGA's
`I I %
`8.
`What is the total amount of damages (in dollars) that Medtronic should be awarded
`.,
`for AGA's infringement? $ 5r""f) go '1, /gq, ou
`
`Signed this· 5 day of ~u.;.f- , 2009
`
`- 6 -
`
`VERDICT FORM
`CASE NO. C07-00567
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IPR2019-00123 Page 00006
`
`
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
