Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 1 of 38 PageID #: 9883
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 1 of 38 PagelD #: 9883
`
`
`EXHIBIT J
`EXHIBIT J
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 2 of 38 PageID #: 9884
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`C.A. NO. 2:21-cv-00040-JRG
` LEAD CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`v.
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., AND
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`C.A. NO. 2:21-cv-00041-JRG
`
`
`
`
`PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 3 of 38 PageID #: 9885
`
`
`
`
`
`[AGREED] Introduction .....................................................................................................33
`I.
`II. What A Patent Is And How One Is Obtained .......................................................................44
`III. Brief Overview of the Case – Position of the Parties ........................................................... 109
`IV. Role of the Court and Jury Regarding the Patents-in-Suit ................................................ 1413
`A. Claim Construction ..................................................................................................... 1715
`V. Overview of the Applicable Law ...................................................................................... 2018
`VI. Outline of Trial ............................................................................................................... 2826
`A. Evidence and Witnesses ............................................................................................... 2826
`B.
`[AGREED] Exhibits & Demonstratives ........................................................................ 3129
`1.
`[AGREED] Objections ............................................................................................. 3230
`2.
`[AGREED] Role of the Court and Jury .................................................................... 3230
`C.
`[AGREED] Juror Notebooks ....................................................................................... 3331
`D. Trial Roadmap ............................................................................................................ 3533
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 4 of 38 PageID #: 9886
`
`
`
`I.
`
`[AGREED] INTRODUCTION1
`
`Ladies and gentlemen of the jury:
`
`You’ve now been sworn as the jurors in this case. And as the jury, you are the sole judges
`
`of the facts. And as such, you will decide and determine all of the facts in this case.
`
`As the Judge, I will give you instructions on the law, decide questions of law that arise
`
`during the trial, and handle matters of evidence and procedure. I’m also responsible for managing
`
`the flow of the trial and maintaining the decorum of the court.
`
`At the end of the evidence, I will give you detailed instructions about the law that you must
`
`apply in deciding this case, and I’ll give you a list of questions that you are then to answer. That
`
`list of questions is called the verdict form.
`
`And your answers to the questions will need to be unanimous, and those unanimous
`
`answers will constitute the verdict in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The parties have indicated in brackets whether a particular section is agreed or disputed. GTP’s
`disputed proposals are set apart with brackets and highlighted in yellow. Samsung’s disputed
`proposals are set apart with brackets and highlighted in blue.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 5 of 38 PageID #: 9887
`
`
`
`II. WHAT A PATENT IS AND HOW ONE IS OBTAINED
`
`I now want to briefly tell you what the case is about. This case involves a dispute regarding
`
`United States patents, as you saw in the patent video this morning, but now I want to give you
`
`some additional instruction beyond what you saw in the video this morning and on the record about
`
`a patent and how a patent is obtained.
`
`Patents are either granted or denied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`
`often referred to shorthand as simply “the PTO.” A valid United States patent gives the patent
`
`holder the right for up to 20 years from the date the patent application was filed to prevent others
`
`from making, using, offering to sell, or selling the patented invention within the United States, or
`
`from importing it into the United States without the patent holder’s permission.
`
`A violation of the patent holder’s rights is called infringement. A patent holder may try to
`
`enforce a patent against those believed to have infringed by filing a lawsuit in federal court, and
`
`that’s what we have before us in this case. [GTP’s Proposal: A patent holder does not need to
`
`use his patent for it to be infringed or enforced. A patent holder can recover damages after a patent
`
`expires for infringement that occurred before the patent expired. A patent holder can obtain
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 6 of 38 PageID #: 9888
`
`
`
`damages for infringement going back six years from the date the patent holder files a lawsuit for
`
`infringement.] 234
`
`The process of obtaining a patent is called patent prosecution. To obtain a patent, one must
`
`first file an application with the Patent and Trademark Office, or the PTO. The PTO is an agency
`
`of the United States Government that employs trained Examiners who review applications for
`
`patents.
`
`The application includes what is called a specification. The specification is required to
`
`contain a written description of the claimed invention telling what the invention is, how it works,
`
`how to make it, and how to use it. The specification concludes with one or more numbered
`
`sentences. These numbered sentences at the end of the patent are called the patent “claims.” If a
`
`patent is granted by the PTO, the patent claims define the boundaries of the patent’s protection and
`
`give notice to the public of those boundaries.
`
`[GTP’s Proposal: Patent claims may exist in two forms, referred to as “independent
`
`claims” and “dependent claims.” An independent claim does not refer to any other claim in the
`
`patent. It is independent. It’s not necessary to look at any other claim or claims to determine what
`
`an independent claim covers.
`
`
`2 GTP: Adapted from Preliminary Jury Instructions in Lake Cherokee Hard Drive Techs., LLC v.
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-216-JRG, Trial Tr. (Aug. 12, 2013) at 3-7; see also
`The Federal Circuit Bar Association, Model Patent Jury Instructions, (Feb. 2016), p. 2-3.
`
` 3
`
` Samsung: Samsung objects to GTP’s proposed language as superfluous and confusing, because
`this Section is not about patent use, enforcement, or damages. Without GTP’s additional language,
`this instruction will be nearly identical to that in Section A.1 of the May 2020 Federal Circuit Bar
`Association’s Model Jury Instructions. Further, this language is not cited in pp. 3-7 of the Lake
`Cherokee instructions cited by GTP.
`
` 4
`
` GTP Response: This paragraph discusses a patent holder’s rights in enforcing their patent rights.
`The added language clarifies that the patent holder does not need to use their patent and provides
`the timeframe for recovery.
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 7 of 38 PageID #: 9889
`
`
`
`However, a dependent claim refers to at least one other claim in the patent. A dependent
`
`claim includes each of the limitations of that other claim or claims to which it refers, or as we
`
`sometimes say, from which it depends, as well as those additional limitations recited within the
`
`dependent claim itself.
`
`Therefore, Ladies and Gentlemen, to determine what a dependent patent claim covers, it’s
`
`necessary to look at both the dependent claim itself and the independent claim or claims from
`
`which it refers or from which it depends. Those two phrases mean the same thing.
`
`The claims of the patent-in-suit use the word “comprising.” Comprising means including
`
`or containing. A claim that includes the word “comprising” is not limited to the methods or devices
`
`having only the elements that are recited in the claim but also covers methods or devices that add
`
`additional elements.
`
`Let me give you an example. Take, for example, a claim that covers a table. If a claim
`
`covers or recites that a table comprising a tabletop, legs, and glue is given, then the claim will
`
`cover any table that contains those structures, even if the table contains other structures, such as a
`
`leaf to put in the top of the table or wheels to put on the ends of the legs. Now, that’s a simple
`
`example using the word “comprising” and what it means. In other words, it can have other features
`
`in addition to those that are covered by the patent.]567
`
`
`5 GTP: Adapted from Preliminary Jury Instructions in Lake Cherokee Hard Drive Techs., LLC v.
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-216-JRG, Trial Tr. (Aug. 12, 2013) at 3-7; see also
`The Federal Circuit Bar Association, Model Patent Jury Instructions, (Feb. 2016), p. 2-3.
`
` 6
`
` Samsung: Samsung objects to GTP’s proposed insertion as superfluous and confusing, because
`this Section is not about the scope of a patent’s claims. Compare infra Section IV. Further, this
`instruction is not included in the May 2020 Federal Circuit Bar Association’s Model Jury
`Instructions. Finally, this language is not cited in the Lake Cherokee instructions at pp. 3-7. It is
`also ambiguous as to what “[t]hose two phrases” refers to in the third paragraph of GTP’s proposal.
`
` 7
`
` GTP’s Response: These paragraphs provide clarity to the jury as an overview of the patent
`system and relates directly agreed paragraphs.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 8 of 38 PageID #: 9890
`
`
`
`After the applicant files the application with the PTO, an Examiner reviews the application
`
`to determine whether or not the claims are patentable, that is to say, appropriate for patent
`
`protection, and whether or not the specification adequately describes the invention that is claimed.
`
`In examining the patent application, the Examiner reviews certain information about the state of
`
`the technology at the time the application was filed. The Examiner searches for and reviews this
`
`type of information that is publicly available or that is submitted by the applicant.
`
`This type of information is called “prior art.” The Examiner reviews this prior art to
`
`determine whether or not the invention is truly an advance over the state of the art at the time.
`
`Prior art is defined by law, and I’ll give you at a later time specific instructions as to what
`
`constitutes prior art. However, in general, prior art includes information that demonstrates the
`
`state of the technology that existed before the claimed invention was made or before the application
`
`for a patent was filed with the PTO. A patent contains a list of certain prior art that the examiner
`
`has considered. The items on this list are called the “cited references.”
`
`After the prior art search and an examination of the application, the Examiner informs the
`
`applicant in writing of what the Examiner has found and whether the Examiner considers any claim
`
`to be patentable and, thus, would be “allowed.” This writing from the Examiner is called an “Office
`
`Action.” If the Examiner rejects the claims, the applicant has an opportunity to respond to the
`
`Examiner to try to persuade the Examiner to allow the claims. The applicant also has the chance
`
`to change or amend the claims or to submit new claims.
`
`The papers generated during these communications back and forth between the applicant
`
`and the Examiner are called the “prosecution history.” This process, communicating between the
`
`examiner and the applicant, may go back and forth for some time until the Examiner is satisfied
`
`that the application meets the requirements for a patent, or that the application should be rejected
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 9 of 38 PageID #: 9891
`
`
`
`and no patent should issue. If the Examiner is satisfied, the application issues as a United States
`
`patent. If the Examiner concludes that the application does not meet the requirements for a patent
`
`and should be rejected, then no patent is issued.
`
`[GTP’s Proposal:
`
`An issued patent is presumed valid under the law. A person accused of infringement has
`
`the right to argue here in federal court that a claimed invention in a patent is invalid.
`
`It is your job as the jury to consider the evidence presented by the parties and determine
`
`independently and for yourselves whether or not the Defendants have proven that a patent is
`
`invalid. A patent claim issued by the PTO can only be found invalid by clear and convincing
`
`evidence.]
`
`[Samsung’s Proposal:
`
`An issued patent is presumed valid under the law. However, the fact that the PTO grants
`
`a patent does not necessarily mean that any invention claimed in the patent, in fact, deserves the
`
`protection of a patent. For example, the Examiner may not have had available all of the prior art
`
`that will be presented to you during this trial. Also, unlike a court proceeding, patent prosecution
`
`takes place without input from those who are later alleged to infringe the patent. A defendant
`
`accused of infringement has the right to argue here in federal court that a claimed invention in the
`
`patent is invalid because it was already disclosed in the prior art or otherwise does not meet the
`
`requirements for a patent. It is your job as the jury to consider the evidence presented by the parties
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 10 of 38 PageID #: 9892
`
`
`
`and determine independently and for yourselves whether or not the Defendants have proven that a
`
`patent is invalid.8 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8 Samsung: Samsung’s proposal is supported by Microsoft Corp. v. i4i P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 98
`(2011) (“Simply put, if the PTO did not have all material facts before it, its considered judgment
`may lose significant force. And, concomitantly, the challenger's burden to persuade the jury of its
`invalidity defense by clear and convincing evidence may be easier to sustain.”).
`
` GTP: GTP objects to this instruction because Samsung has not shown it to have been included in
`previous preliminary jury instructions, it is redundant of other instructions and it attempts to
`characterize the work of the USPTO in ways that are misleading and not relevant to the facts of
`this case.
`
` 9
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 11 of 38 PageID #: 9893
`
`
`
`III.
`
`BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE CASE – POSITION OF THE PARTIES
`
`To help you follow the evidence, I’ll give you a brief summary of the position of each of
`
`the parties.
`
`The party who brings the lawsuit is called the “Plaintiff,” and the Plaintiff in this case is
`
`Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, who I’ll simply refer to throughout the trial as either “the
`
`Plaintiff” or “GTP.” The party whom the lawsuit is brought is called the “Defendant.” The
`
`Defendants in this case are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`who I’ll . refer to throughout the trial as “Samsung” or simply, “the Defendants.”
`
`As I’ve told you during the jury selection process, this case involves four United States
`
`patents that have been asserted by GTP against Samsung: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,933,431, 8,194,924,
`
`8,553,079, and 8,878,949. Patents are commonly known by their last three digits, so throughout
`
`the trial you will hear these patents referred to most often as simply the ’4-3-1, the ’9-2-4, the ’0-
`
`7-9 patent, and the ’9-4-9 patents. They may also be referred to at various times as the “Patents-
`
`in-Suit.” [GTP’s Proposal: And these patents relate generally to the ability of cellular phones and
`
`tablets to use electro-optical sensors (including cameras), light sources, and computers to detect
`
`gestures in order to control functions of the cellular phones and tablets, such as unlocking the
`
`device and other functions.]10 [Samsung’s Proposal: And these Patents-in-Suit generally relate to
`
`human-computer interaction.]11 You’re going to have a complete copy of these patents in your
`
`juror notebooks which you’ll receive in a little bit.
`
`
`10 GTP: The Patents-in-Suit discuss various handheld devices including cellular phones.
`
`11 Samsung: The parties agree that the relevant technological field is “human-computer
`interaction.” Further, it is a mischaracterization to say the Patents-in-Suit are relate to “cellular
`phones and tablets.” Most Asserted Claims do not recite a cellular phone and many do not even
`recite a handheld device. Further, there are no Asserted Claims that disclose “unlocking” a device,
`nor do the Patents-in-Suit disclose unlocking a device as a contemplated control function. GTP’s
`proposal impermissibly injects its infringement theories into the Jury Instructions.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 12 of 38 PageID #: 9894
`
`
`
`Now, the Plaintiff, GTP, contends that the Defendants have infringed certain claims of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing certain smartphones and
`
`tablets that [GTP’s Proposal: include GTP’s patented technology]12 [Samsung’s Proposal GTP
`
`contends are covered by the claims of the Patents-in-Suit.]13 The parties and I will often refer to
`
`these smartphones and tablets as the “Accused Products.” The smartphones that GTP alleges to
`
`infringe the Patents-in-Suit are the Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge+, S7 Active, Note 7, S8, S8+, S8
`
`Active, S9, S9+, Note 9, S10, S10+, S10e, S10 5G, and (Z) Fold. The tablets that GTP alleges to
`
`infringe the Patents-in-Suit are the Samsung Galaxy Tab A 10.1 (2016), Tab S3, Tab A 8.0 (2017),
`
`Tab Active, Tab S4, Tab A 10.5, Tab A 8.0 (2019), Tab A Kids 8.0 (2019), and Tab S5e. GTP
`
`also alleges that “applications” or “features,” when operated by the Accused Products, cause the
`
`Accused Products to infringe the Patents-in-Suit. These “applications” or “features” will often
`
`simply be referred to as the [GTP’s Proposal: “Features.”] [Samsung’s Proposal: “Accused
`
`Features”]. The following [GTP’s Proposal: “Features”]14 [Samsung’s Proposal: “Accused
`
`
`12 GTP: GTP’s proposal refers to the fact that the Patents-in-Suit are issued U.S. Patents.
`
`13 Samsung: The parties dispute whether Samsung’s products infringe any of the Asserted Claims.
`GTP’s proposal assumes infringement.
`
`14 GTP: GTP’s infringement theories from the outset of this litigation revolve around hardware.
`Samsung’s proposal interjects its noninfringement and/or invalidity theories into the jury
`instruction. GTP has not labeled anything in its infringement contentions as “Accused Features.”
`As GTP has previously made clear, including in response to Samsung’s Motion to dismiss, the
`term to “Accused Features” is not a defined term in the complaint. See Dkt. No. 1. In every other
`instance when referencing Samsung features, GTP uses the defined term “Features.” See Dkt. No.
`1 at ¶¶ 26, 41, 56, and 71.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 13 of 38 PageID #: 9895
`
`
`
`Features”]15 will be discussed in this case: Air Gestures, AR Emoji, Face ID Unlock, Intelligent
`
`Scan Unlock, Iris Scan Unlock, Palm Solution, and Smart Stay.
`
`GTP alleges that Samsung has infringed Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
`
`17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 30 of the ’431 Patent; Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12
`
`and 14 of the ’924 Patent; Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 30 of
`
`the ’079 Patent; and Claims 13, 14, 16 and 18 of the ’949 Patent. Most of the Claims relate to
`
`claimed “apparatuses”—i.e., “products”—and may be referred to as the “Asserted Apparatus
`
`Claims.” These are Claims 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of the ’431 Patent, Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10,
`
`12 and 14 of the ’924 Patent, Claims 11, 14, 15 and 19 of the ’079 Patent, and Claims 13, 14, 16
`
`and 18 of the ’949 Patent. The rest of the Claims relate to claimed methods and may be referred
`
`to as the “Asserted Method Claims.” These are Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
`
`22, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 30 of the ’431 Patent, and Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and
`
`30 of the ’079 Patent. Collectively, the “Asserted Apparatus Claims” and the “Asserted Method
`
`Claims” are referred to as the “Asserted Claims.” GTP also contends that it is entitled to money
`
`damages as a result of this alleged infringement.
`
`Samsung denies that it has infringed any Asserted Claim of any Patent-in-Suit. Samsung
`
`also argues that the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid. Samsung also contends that
`
`GTP is not entitled to any money damages.
`
`I know, Ladies and Gentlemen, there have been a lot of new words and new concepts that
`
`have been thrown at you since you arrived at the courthouse this morning. I’m going to define a
`
`lot of those words for you and go through those concepts as we complete these instructions. The
`
`
`15 Samsung: Because GTP relies on these features for infringement, the “features” should be
`referred to at trial as the Accused Features, and not simply, “the Features.” GTP referred to these
`features as “Accused Features” in its Complaint.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 14 of 38 PageID #: 9896
`
`
`
`attorneys in the case are going to discuss them with you in their opening statements. The witnesses
`
`throughout the trial are going to help you with their testimony to understand these words and
`
`concepts. So, please, do not feel overwhelmed at this stage. I promise you, it will all come together
`
`as we go through the trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 15 of 38 PageID #: 9897
`
`
`
`IV. ROLE OF THE COURT AND JURY REGARDING THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`Your job in this case is to decide whether the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit have
`
`been infringed and whether the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid. If you decide
`
`that any Asserted Claim of the Patents-in-Suit has been infringed and is not invalid, you’ll need to
`
`decide what amount of money damages should be awarded to the Plaintiff to compensate for that
`
`infringement.
`
`In a moment, each of you are going to be given a Juror Notebook. In these notebooks, you
`
`will see that you have a copy of the Patents-in-Suit that are at issue in this case. You will also find
`
`in there an Appendix that lists claim terms or claim language that the Court has interpreted and
`
`given you definitions for. This can be found in the “Claim Construction Glossary” of the
`
`Appendix.
`
`Hand out Jury Notebooks with the Patents-in-Suit and Claim Construction Glossary]
`
`If you look at your Juror Notebooks and open to the first patent, you will see that it shows
`
`the ’431 Patent. Again, I’m referring to the last three digits of the patent number in the upper right-
`
`hand corner of the patent. If you look on that first page of the ’431 Patent, you will see it has some
`
`identifying information. For instance, up in the right-hand corner underneath the patent number,
`
`it has a date, April 26, 2011. That is the date the patent was issued. If you look over on the left-
`
`hand side, near the top, at item number 76, you will see it says that the named inventor is Timothy
`
`R. Pryor. [Samsung’s Proposal: As you continue looking down the left-hand column, at item
`
`number 21 you will see that ’431 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 12834,281. A little
`
`further down, at item number 63, you will see “Related U.S. Application Data.” Those are the
`
`patent applications, and issued patents from those applications, that relate to and led up to the ’431
`
`Patent. It states that the application that issued as the ’431 Patent was a continuation of application
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 16 of 38 PageID #: 9898
`
`
`
`No. 11/980,710, which was filed on October 31, 2007. If you follow that all the way down, you
`
`will see that the ’431 Patent is the “child” of a handful of patent applications all dating back to
`
`application No. 09/612,225, filed on July 2, 2000, which is now U.S. Patent No. 6,766,036. That
`
`patent is not one of the Patents-in-Suit, however.]16 17
`
`Now, as you go down the column on the right-hand side, you will see a heading called
`
`“ABSTRACT,” which is a brief statement about the subject-matter of the patent. On the pages
`
`that follow this first page, you will see figures, and those are each labeled in bold numbers.
`
`The section after the figures is called the specification of the patent. The specification is
`
`required to describe the invention, explain what the invention is, how it works, how to make it,
`
`and how to use it. The specification also includes examples, or “embodiments,” of the invention.
`
`You will notice that this section has numbers at the top of each column. When we cite to the
`
`specification, we do so by these column numbers that are along the top, and a series of small
`
`numbers, line numbers, written in between the two columns.
`
`For this patent, the specification ends at column 25, line 38. From line 39 onwards, you
`
`will find the patent “claims.” Patent “claims” are numbered sentences that define the boundaries
`
`of the patent right granted to the named inventor. Therefore, what a patent covers depends on what
`
`each of its claims covers.
`
`
`16 Samsung: Samsung’s proposed language follows guidance from the May 2020 Federal Circuit
`Bar Association’s Model Jury Instructions, Section A.3 (“The Court should show the jury the
`patent at issue and point out the parts, which include the specification, drawings, and claims,
`including the claims at issue.”).
`
`17 GTP: GTP objects to this proposal as unnecessary and confusing. Directing the jury’s attention
`to the lengthy relationship to the various prior patent applications and issued patents is an attempt
`by Samsung to interject its priority date arguments.
`
`Samsung: Samsung is willing to meet and confer to draft an instruction that mitigates GTP’s
`concern that this instruction relates to any substantive argument about priority dates.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 17 of 38 PageID #: 9899
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 17 of 38 PagelD #: 9899
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 18 of 38 PageID #: 9900
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`[GTP’s Proposal] In this case, it’s my job to tell you what the law is, to handle rulings on
`
`the evidence and procedure, and to oversee the conduct of the trial as effectively and efficiently as
`
`possible
`
`To determine the meaning of any claim language or terms from within the Patents-in-Suit
`
`that needs construction or interpretation. Claim language is the language in those numbered
`
`paragraphs at the end of the patent. I have already determined the meanings of the language in the
`
`claims of the Patents-in-Suit, and those meanings or constructions have been provided to you in
`
`your Juror Notebooks regarding those disputed terms. You can find these in the “Claim
`
`Construction Glossary.” You must accept the meanings that I give you and use those meanings
`
`when you decide whether any particular Asserted Claim has or has not been infringed, and whether
`
`or not you decide any particular Asserted Claim is invalid.]18
`
`[Samsung’s Proposal]
`
`In this case, it’s my job to determine the meaning of any claim language or terms from
`
`within the Patents-in-Suit that needs construction or interpretation. Claim language is the language
`
`in those numbered paragraphs at the end of the patent. I have already determined the meanings of
`
`the language in the claims of the Patents-in-Suit, and those meanings or constructions have been
`
`provided to you in your Juror Notebooks regarding those disputed terms. You can find these in
`
`the “Claim Construction Glossary.” You must accept the meanings that I give you and use those
`
`
`18 GTP: Adapted from Preliminary Jury Instructions in Lake Cherokee Hard Drive Techs., LLC
`v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-216-JRG, Trial Tr. (Aug. 12, 2013) at 8-9.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 19 of 38 PageID #: 9901
`
`
`
`meanings when you decide whether any particular Asserted Claim has or has not been infringed,
`
`and whether or not you decide any particular Asserted Claim is invalid.] 19 20
`
`[GTP’s Proposal: For any claim term for which I have not provided you with a definition
`
`or a construction, you should apply the plain and ordinary meaning.] 21 [Samsung’s Proposal: For
`
`any claim term for which I have not provided you with a definition or a construction, you should
`
`apply the plain and ordinary meaning of that term as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`which is to say the field of the Patents-in-Suit at the time of the invention. In this case, the relevant
`
`technology is in the field of human-computer interaction. Both parties agree that a person having
`
`an ordinary level of skill in either of these technological fields would have a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, or an equivalent
`
`technical degree or equivalent work experience, and an additional two years of education or
`
`experience in the relevant technological field.]22 If I provided you with a definition, however, you
`
`are to apply my definition to those terms throughout the case.
`
`
`19 Samsung: GTP’s proposal unnecessarily includes discussion of the Court overseeing “conduct
`at trial.” This Section relates to claim construction.
`
`20 GTP: GTP objects to this instruction because Samsung has not shown it to have been included
`in previous preliminary jury instructions.
`
`21 GTP: Adapted from Preliminary Jury Instructions in Lake Cherokee Hard Drive Techs., LLC
`v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-216-JRG, Trial Tr. (Aug. 12, 2013) at 8-9.
`
`22 Samsung: Samsung’s proposed instruction reiterates the legal standard for applying the plain
`and ordinary meaning of a claim term. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (“We have frequently stated that the words of a claim 'are given their ordinary and customary
`meaning. We have made clear, moreover, that the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim
`term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at
`the time of the invention,”) (citations omitted). Samsung’s proposed language also makes clear to
`the jury the standard to apply for a person of ordinary skill in the art in this case. See also Section
`IV.A.2 of Final Instructions.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 20 of 38 PageID #: 9902
`
`
`
`However, my interpretation of the language of the Asserted claims should not be taken as
`
`an indication by you that I have a personal opinion, or any opinion for that matter, regarding issues
`
`such as infringement and validity. Those issues are issues for you, the jury, alone to decide. I’ll
`
`provide you with more detailed instructions on the meaning of certain Asserted Claims before you
`
`retire to deliberate and reach your verdict.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 211-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 21 of 38 PageID #: 9903
`
`
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICABLE LAW
`
`In deciding the issues that are before you, you’ll be asked to consider specific legal
`
`standards. I’ll give you an overview of those rules standards now. And then at the conclusion of
`
`the case, I’ll give you much more detailed instructions.
`
`[GTP’s Proposal:
`
`GTP has the burden of proving patent infringement by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`GTP also has the burden of proving damages for patent infringement by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence.
`
`
`
`A preponderance of the evidence means evidence that persuades you t