IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`IOENGINE, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INTERACTIVE MEDIA CORP. D/B/A
`KANGURU SOLUTIONS,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 14-1571-GMS
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`Instructions: 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. Please refer to the Jury Instructions for guidance on the law applicable to the
`
`subject matter covered by each question.
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2022
`
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`IOENGINE, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INTERACTIVE MEDIA CORP. D/B/A
`KANGURU SOLUTIONS,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 14-1571-GMS
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`Instructions: 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. Please refer to the Jury Instructions for guidance on the law applicable to the
`
`subject matter covered by each question.
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2022
`
`
`
`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:
`
`I.
`
`Infringement
`
`1.
`
`Do you find that IOENGINE has proven that it is more likely than not that the
`
`Accused IMC Products infringe the Asserted Claims of the '047 Patent?
`
`Checking "Yes" below indicates a finding for IO ENGINE.
`
`Checking "No " below indicates a finding for IMC
`
`J(
`y;
`
`,><
`
`Do the Accused IMC Products infringe Independent Claim 1 of the '047 Patent or .any of
`.the Asserted Claims that depend upon 1t (Claims 2, 7, 8, 14, 15, 21or23)?
`Product Name
`Yes (for IOENGINE)
`No (for IMC)
`x
`Defender 3000
`x
`Defender 2000
`x
`Defender Elite 300
`Defender Elite 200
`,X
`.Defender Elite 30
`Defender HDD
`Defender SSD
`Defender HDD 300
`Defender SSD 300
`Defender Basic
`Defender Basic +
`Defender Dual Trust
`DefenderV2
`Defender Elite
`
`~
`
`/C
`.x.
`x
`x
`x
`)<
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2022
`
`
`
`Do the Accused IMC Products infringe Independent Claim 24 of the ''047 Patent?
`Product Name
`Yes (for IOENGINE)
`No (for IMC)
`Defender 3 000
`'<
`x.
`Defender 2000
`Defender Elite 300
`x
`x
`Defender Elite 200
`x
`Defender Elite 30
`Defender HDD
`Defender SSD
`Defender HDD 300
`Defender SSD 300
`Defender Basic
`Defender Basic +
`Defender DualTrust
`DefenderV2
`Defender Elite
`
`><
`x
`x
`
`)(
`x
`
`)(
`,x
`
`; (
`
`)'<
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2022
`
`
`
`Do the Accused IMC Products infringe Independent Claim 27 of the '047 Patent or any
`of the Asserted Claims that depend upon it (Claim 28)?
`Product Name
`Yes (for IOENGINE)
`No (for IMC)
`x:
`Defender 3000
`Defender 2000
`Defender Elite 300
`Defender Elite 200
`Defender Elite 30
`Defender HDD
`Defender SSD
`Defender HDD 300
`Defender SSD 300
`Defender Basic
`Defender Basic +
`Defender DualTrust
`DefenderV2
`Defender Elite
`
`)(
`
`>(
`x
`>(
`
`x
`x
`x
`><.
`
`x.
`
`.>(
`><
`x
`x
`
`Please proceed to Question 2.
`
`2.
`
`If you answered "Yes" for any Accused IMC Product, has IOENGINE proven, by
`
`dear and convincing evidence, that the infringement was willful?
`
`No
`
`Please proceed to Question 3.
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2022
`
`
`
`Il.
`
`Validity
`
`3.
`
`Do you find that IMC has proven, by clear .and convincing evidence, that any
`
`Asserted Claim of the '047 Patent is invalid as being anticipated, and, if so, specify what prior art
`
`reference(s) IMC has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, renders the claim anticipated:
`
`Checking "Not Invalid" below indicates a finding for IOENGINE.
`
`Checking "Invalid" below indicates a finding for IMC. If you find for IMC on any claim,
`
`you must list the.specific prior art reference(s) that render that claim Anticipated.
`
`'047 Patent
`
`Not Invalid
`(for IOENGINE)
`
`Invalid
`(for IMC)
`
`(If Invalid)
`Specify What Prior Art Reference(s)
`Renders it Anticipated
`
`Claim 1
`Claim2
`Claim 7
`Claim 8
`Claim 14
`Claim 15
`Claim 21
`Claim23
`Claim 24
`Claim27
`Claim28
`
`)(
`
`>(
`
`I(
`x
`x
`"'
`x
`x
`"""
`
`")(
`
`>(
`
`Please proceed to Question 4.
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2022
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Do you find that IMC has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that any
`
`Asserted Claim of the '047 Patent is invalid as obvious, and, if so, specify what prior art
`
`reference or combination of references IMC has proven, by clear and convincing evidence,
`
`renders the claim obvious:
`
`Checking "Not Invalid" below indicates a finding for IOENGINE.
`
`Checking "Invalid" below indicates a finding for IMC. Jf you find for IMC on any claim,
`
`you must list the specific prior art reference(s) that render the claim obvious.
`
`'047 ·Patent
`
`Not Invalid
`(for IOENGINE)
`
`Invalid
`(for IMC)
`
`(If Invalid)
`Specify What Prior Art Reference(s)
`Renders it Obvious
`
`Claim 1
`Claim2
`Claim 7
`Claim 8
`Claim 14
`Claim 15
`Claim 21
`Claim 23
`Claim24
`Claim 27
`Claim 28
`
`JI(
`
`.x.
`x
`
`)(
`x
`K
`;(.
`
`"'
`x
`x
`x
`
`Please proceed to Question 5.
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2022
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Do you find that IMC has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that any
`
`Asserted Claim of the '047 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for any of the following
`
`reasons?
`
`A.
`
`Enablement
`
`Checldng "Not Invalid" below indicates a finding for IOENGINE.
`
`Checldng "Invalid" below indicates a finding for IMC
`
`'047 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`Claim2
`Claim 7
`Claim 8
`Claim 14
`Claim 15
`Claim 21
`Claim23
`Claim24
`Claim 27
`Claim 28
`
`Not Invalid
`(for IOENGINE)
`x
`x
`
`Invalid
`(for IMC)
`
`'>(
`x
`X'.
`)(
`
`><
`/(
`x
`x
`
`)(
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2022
`
`
`
`.,
`
`B. Written Description
`
`Checking "Not Invalid" below indicates a finding for IOENGINE.
`
`Checldng "Invalid" below indicates a finding for IMC
`
`'047 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`Claim2
`Claim 7
`Claim 8
`Claim 14
`Claim 15
`Claim21
`Claim 23
`Claim24
`Claim 27
`Claim28
`
`Not Invalid
`(for IOENGINE)
`x
`
`Invalid
`(for IMC)
`
`)(
`
`)<
`
`;<
`x
`x
`
`')('.
`
`)(
`
`k
`
`K
`x
`
`Please proceed to question 6.
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2022
`
`
`
`..
`
`Ill.
`
`Inventorship
`
`6.
`
`Do you find that IMC has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that any
`
`individual other than Mr. McNulty made a significant contribution to the idea claimed in one or
`
`more claims of the '047 Patent?
`
`Checking "Yes" below indicates afindingfor IMC.
`
`Checking "No" below indicates afindingfor IOENGINE.
`
`- - - - -
`
`YES
`
`-~N~o __ NO
`
`Please proceed to Question 7.
`
`7.
`
`If you answered "Yes" to Question 6, indicate which individual(s) oth~r than Mr.
`
`McNulty made a significant contribution to the idea claimed in one or more claims of the '04 7
`
`Patent? - - - - - - - - - -
`
`Please proceed to question 8.
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2022
`
`
`
`IV. Damages
`
`8. ·
`
`If you found that any of the Accused IMC Products infringed at least one
`
`Asserted Claim of the '047 Patent, and that the infringed claim(s) was not invalid, state the
`
`amount of damages that you find IOENGINE is entitled to from IMC.
`
`Damages:
`
`$
`
`l. '1
`
`M. \ \. W''iJ
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2022
`
`
`
`I
`
`I
`
`For the Jury:
`
`Date
`
`i ..__ __________ _
`
`Jury Foreperson:
`
`Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC
`IPR2019-00879 (US 9,059,969)
`Exhibit 2022
`
`
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
