Case 3:13-cv-00457-JST Document 219 Filed 12/17/14 Page 1 of 6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FILED
`DEC 1 7 2014
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5 ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`CL~~iHiRo W. WIE:KJNG
`.s. DISTRICT
`NORTHER '
`·
`N DISTRICT O COURT
`F CALIFORNIA
`
`CASE NO. 3:13-CV-00457-JST
`
`6
`
`7
`
`V.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`FINAL VERDICT FORM
`
`8 CMI USA, INC. fka COOLER MASTER USA,
`INC.,
`
`9
`
`Defendant.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-00457-JST Document 219 Filed 12/17/14 Page 2 of 6
`
`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.
`
`FINDINGS ON ASETEK'S INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS
`(The questions regarding infringement should be answered regardless of your findings with
`respect to the validity or invalidity of the patent.)
`A. Direct Infringement
`
`1. Has Asetek proven that it is more likely than not that CMI USA infringed one or more
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,240,362 ("the '362 patent")? An answer of "Yes" is a finding in favor of
`Asetek. An answer of"No" is a finding in favor of CMI USA.
`
`Yes_L
`
`No
`
`2. If your answer to Question No. 1 is "Yes," mark which products infringe which claims of
`the '362 patent by placing an "X" in the appropriate boxes, and if not, niove on to Question No. 3:
`
`Seidon
`
`Seidon 120V
`
`Nepton
`
`Glacer240L
`
`(Seidon 120M,
`120XL and 240M)
`
`(Nepton 140XL
`and 280L)
`
`Claim 14
`
`Claim 15
`
`Claim 17
`
`Claim 18
`
`Claim 19
`
`>(
`
`y:.,
`
`~
`x.
`
`X
`x
`X
`><
`
`X
`
`i
`i
`
`X
`X
`y:,
`
`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
`
`CAS~:"No. 3: I 3-CV-00457-JST
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-00457-JST Document 219 Filed 12/17/14 Page 3 of 6
`
`B. Contributory Infringement
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`3. Has Asetek proven that it is more likely than not: (i) that a person or entity directly
`infringed one or more of the claims of Asetek's '362 patent; (ii) that CMI USA supplied an
`important component of the infringing part of the product; (iii) that the component was not a
`common component suitable for non-infringing use; and (iv) that CMI USA supplied the component
`with knowledge of the patent and knowledge that the component was especially made or adapted for
`use in an infringing manner? An answer of "Yes" is a finding in favor of Asetek. An answer of "No" is
`a finding in favor of CMI USA.
`Yes V
`
`No
`
`8
`
`4.
`If your answer to Question No. 3 is "Yes," mark the boxes below for the claims CMI
`USA has contributorily infringed by selling accused CMI USA products, and if not, move on to
`9 Question No. 5:
`
`Seidon
`
`Seidon 120V
`
`Nepton
`
`Glacer240L
`
`(Seidon 120M,
`120XL and 240M)
`
`(Nepton 140XL
`and 280L)
`
`Claim 17
`
`Claim 18
`
`Claim 19
`
`X
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`)(
`
`X
`
`X.
`
`><
`
`X
`X.
`
`FINDINGS ON CMI USA'S INVALIDITY DEFENSES
`(The questions regarding invalidity should be answered regardless of your findings with
`respect to infringement.)
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`5. Has CMI USA proven that it is highly probable that a claim of Asetek's '764 patent was
`"anticipated," or, in other words, all the limitations of a claim of Asetek's '764 patent were disclosed
`in the Koga prior art reference? An answer of "Yes" is a finding in favor of CMI USA. An answer
`22 of "No" is a findin_g in favor of Asetek.
`NoX
`6. If your answer to Question No. 5 is "Yes," mark which claims were "anticipated," and if
`not, move on to Question No. 7:
`
`· Yes
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Claim 1: __ _
`
`Claim 5: - - -
`Claim 8:
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Claim 2: - - -
`Claim6: __ _
`
`Claim 9:
`
`- - -
`
`2
`
`Claim3: __ _
`
`Claim 7: - - -
`Claim 10:
`
`CASE No. 3:13-CV-00457-JST
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-00457-JST Document 219 Filed 12/17/14 Page 4 of 6
`
`Claim 11:
`
`Claim 14:
`
`Claim 18:
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`Claim 12:
`
`Claim 15:
`
`Claim 13:
`
`Claim 17:
`
`7. The ultimate legal conclusion on the obviousness question will be made by the court.
`However, in order for the court to do so, you must answer the following preliminary factual
`questions:
`
`a. What was the level · of ordinary skill in the field that someone would have had at
`the time the claimed invention was made? (check the applicable answer)
`
`in
`level course work
`someone who has completed college
`)t
`thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer, and would have two or
`more years of experience in de$igning liquid cool.ing systems for computers. R
`~setek' s positiertj· V e.r ~ s 1M ;·\er -k~ l\o\ c~ j o ') .
`-~ s0m0one 1:'rtao bas compl@t.@d se1.i@ral eeilege- tevd classes covePifl.g
`thtwmal flfld eonducthc preperties of materials and --mntiamental meehtmical
`- e nw t l~~~ e - v eF - a~~ .. oo=moostry
`exp0F-iene©=Werc-lang=wi-th=Hquicl=couiing· devic-~forcumputers-or-v-er-¥-Sffl'}ilar
`teGl:m.ology One with a more athanced degree may hav@ had less practtcal
`.
`.-
`.
`'
`.. n)
`-
`~ o.b:hi€, ~tH t,
`~
`On{ vJ \-\~ <l mo~ o..JLlv""d J~rte 1~
`-15._ other, speci
`16- Ct,6:.w ~e\~s {Y\t'\.,j (i.<),ve, ~Q,~ \'(%. pr>1.d\½\,l ~rleK-t
`
`b. What was the scope and content of the prior art at the time of the claimed
`invention? (check the applicable answer)
`
`_ _ The prior art devices included a pump, a single-chamber reservoir ( as
`that term was used in the prior art), and a cold plate as separate components
`that were connected using tubing or attached together with clips or screws ·
`Certain prior art devices had a pump and a cold plate incorporated into a
`single swirl chamber, which provided no separation between the pumping and
`the heat exchange functionalities of the liquid cooling device. (Asetek's
`position)
`
`_ _ In addition to the prior art devices described in the immediately
`preceding paragraph, the prior art devices also included a reservoir with two
`chambers, a pump, and a cold plate combined into one integrated pump head,
`the pump head being connected to a radiator and a fan using tubes. (CMI
`USA's position)
`__x_ other, specify ASttt ~, $ Q't?f)\'J )"1~ N A\YJ\J:f; W \ T t\
`1\-l-a ADD\1 I DN A-s MJ~-b.
`
`3
`
`CASE No. 3:13-CV-00457••JST
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-00457-JST Document 219 Filed 12/17/14 Page 5 of 6
`
`c. What difference, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the prior art at
`the time of the claimed invention?
`
`_ _ Asetek' s patented invention is directed to a closed loop liquid cooling
`system in which cooling liquid is pumped continuously between a pump head
`and a heat radiator (positioned remote from the pump head). Rather than
`connecting together multiple separate components (as in the prior art),
`Asetek' s patented pump head design combines, into a single unit, a pump and
`the claimed "reservoir" that has, among other things, dual chambers and is
`bounded by a removable cold plate. Also, the claimed "reservoir" in Asetek' s
`invention is a single receptacle that is divided into an upper chamber and a
`lower chamber, with the upper chamber providing the pumping function and
`the lower chamber providing the thermal exchange function. irsetek's dual(cid:173)
`chamber design aUe1vvs the pttntpittg-ancl the hea~ge functiQaalities to
`.ge ind@penecntly optimittd in tlle S8J3arate chambers. In addition to providing
`efficient heat removal, Asetek's patented invention include t.\te t>ensfits e,f a
`compact (narrow) profile, cost-effective manufacturin
`reduced risk of
`...:tw__ -ClhlJJ:~l k>e1\e.-,,h ~iJ
`·fluid leakage. (Asetek's position) qt,~~~ ,~~ cy~·
`~~ eK°""\p\e o+ pr\o··< o...\--\'" :J
`_ _ There were no meaningful differences between the scope of the
`claimed invention and what was known in the prior art. (CMI USA's position)
`_X_ other, specify AS tT t~> f o'iiT t ON
`
`"06\..J.i> vJ \ ti4 ~~
`
`l---1cANbsf>
`" Ll
`
`d. Which of the following factors has been established by the evidence with respect
`to Asetek's claimed invention: (check those that apply)
`
`· / commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed
`invention
`·
`✓ a long-felt need for the solution that is provided by the claimed
`invention
`✓ unsuccessful attempts by others to find the solution that is provided by
`the claimed invention
`✓ copying of the claimed invention by others
`_L_ unexpected and superior results from the claimed invention
`~ acceptance by others of the claimed invention as shown by praise from
`others in the field or from the licensing of the claimed invention
`
`_ _ other factor(s) indicating obviousness or nonobviousness-describe the
`factor(s) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
`4
`
`CASE No. 3:13-CV-00457-JST
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-00457-JST Document 219 Filed 12/17/14 Page 6 of 6
`
`FINDINGS ON ASETEK'S DAMAGES
`
`8. Answer the questions on damages and proceed to check and sign the verdict form.
`a. Asetek has proved it is entitled to a reasonable royalty of t\~S' %.
`based on sales through September 30, 2014.
`
`You have now reached the end of the verdict form and should review it to ensure it
`accurately reflects your unanimous determinations. The Presiding Juror should then sign and date
`the verdict form in the spaces below and notify the Security Guard that you have reached a verdict.
`The Presiding Juror should retain possession of the verdict form and bring it when the jury is
`brought back into the courtroom.
`
`DATED: _
`
`____._)_A---4-/_t_l __ 2014
`'
`
`By: Ma ~
`
`Presiding J u r o r~
`
`5
`
`CASE No. 3: l3-CV-00457~JST
`
`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
`
`