Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 1 of 80 PageID #:
`10129
`
`
`EXHIBIT K
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 2 of 80 PageID #:
`10130
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`v.
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., AND
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`C.A. NO. 2:21-cv-00040-JRG
` LEAD CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`C.A. NO. 2:21-cv-00041-JRG
`
`
`
`
`JOINT [PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 3 of 80 PageID #:
`10131
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[Agreed] Introduction ......................................................................................................... 33
`I.
`II. General Instructions ........................................................................................................... 44
`A.
`Verdict Form ................................................................................................................ 44
`B.
`Considering The Evidence ........................................................................................... 55
`1. Witness Testimony .................................................................................................... 66
`[Agreed] Exhibits & Demonstrative Exhibits ........................................................ 99
`2.
`Burdens of Proof ................................................................................................... 1010
`3.
`III. The Contentions of the Parties.................................................................................... 1313
`IV. Patent Claims ............................................................................................................... 1616
`A.
`[AGREED] Role of Patent Claims .......................................................................... 1616
`Independent and Dependent Claims ................................................................... 1717
`1.
`Claim Construction .............................................................................................. 1818
`2.
`[AGREED] “Comprising” Claims ...................................................................... 2020
`3.
`[Samsung’s Proposal: Means-Plus-Function Claims ....................................... 2121
`4.
`Infringement – Generally ............................................................................................... 2323
`V.
`A.
`Burden of Proof ........................................................................................................ 2525
`B.
`Infringement – Literal Infringement ...................................................................... 2626
`VI.
`Invalidity ....................................................................................................................... 3131
`A.
`Burden of Proof ........................................................................................................ 3232
`B. Written Description Requirement .......................................................................... 3334
`C.
`Prior Art : Anticipation & Obviousness ................................................................ 3637
`VII. Damages – Reasonable royalty ................................................................................... 6161
`A.
`[Samsung’s Proposal: Lump Sum v. Running Royalty ....................................... 7169
`B.
`Apportionment ......................................................................................................... 7270
`C.
`Comparable Licenses ............................................................................................... 7472
`D.
`Use of Non-Infringing Alternatives ........................................................................ 7573
`VIII.
`Instructions for Deliberations ................................................................................. 7674
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 4 of 80 PageID #:
`10132
`
`
`
`I.
`
`[AGREED] INTRODUCTION1
`
`Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury:
`
`
`
`You’ve now heard the evidence in this case. I will now instruct you on the law that you
`
`must apply.
`
`Each of you will have a copy of these final jury instructions that I am about to give you
`
`orally. You will have these for your review when you retire to the jury room to deliberate in a few
`
`moments.
`
`It’s your duty to follow the law as I give it to you. On the other hand, as I’ve said
`
`previously, you, the jury, are the sole judges of the facts. Do not consider any statement that I
`
`have made in the course of the trial or may make in these instructions as an indication that I have
`
`any opinion about the facts of the case. You are about to hear closing arguments from the attorneys
`
`for both of the parties. Statements and arguments of the attorneys are not evidence and are not
`
`instructions on the law. They are intended only to assist the jury in understanding the evidence
`
`and the parties’ contentions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 5 of 80 PageID #:
`10133
`
`
`
`II.
`
`GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
`A.
`
`Verdict Form
`
`
`
`A verdict form has been prepared for you. You will take this form to the jury room, and
`
`when you have reached a unanimous agreement as to your verdict, you will have your foreperson
`
`fill in the blanks in that form, date it, and sign it. Answer each question in the verdict form from
`
`the facts as you find them. Do not decide who you think should win and then answer the questions
`
`to reach that result. Again, your answers and your verdict must be unanimous. [Samsung’s
`
`Proposal: If you cannot reach a unanimous verdict, I will declare a mistrial, and set a date for a
`
`new trial.]2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Samsung: Samsung’s proposed language provides an accurate articulation of the law. See Fed.
`R. Civ. P. 48.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 6 of 80 PageID #:
`10134
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Considering The Evidence
`
`The parties have stipulated or agreed to some facts in the case. When the lawyers for both
`
`sides stipulate or agree to the existence of a fact, you must, unless otherwise instructed, accept the
`
`stipulation as evidence and regard the facts as proven.
`
`In addition to the stipulated facts, this case included two types of evidence: (1) the sworn
`
`testimony of the witnesses presented under oath and subject to cross-examination, whether it is
`
`through a live witness or through a deposition witness; and (2) exhibits and demonstratives. That
`
`is the totality of the evidence in this case. The testimony of an eyewitness is called “direct
`
`evidence.” You may also draw reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel
`
`is justified in light of common experience. This is called indirect or circumstantial evidence, that
`
`is, the proof of a chain of circumstances that indicates the existence or nonexistence of certain
`
`other facts. As a general rule, the law makes no distinction between direct or circumstantial
`
`evidence, but simply requires that you find the facts based on the evidence presented, both direct
`
`and circumstantial.
`
`
`
`In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions that reason and common
`
`sense lead you to draw from the facts that have been established by the testimony and evidence in
`
`the case. However, you should not base your decision on any evidence not presented by the parties
`
`during this case, including your own personal experience with any particular smartphone or tablet.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 7 of 80 PageID #:
`10135
`
`
`
`1. Witness Testimony
`
`Throughout the trial, you heard from a number of different witnesses. What these
`
`witnesses said is called “testimony.” Witness testimony was one type of evidence presented to
`
`you at this trial. In determining whether any fact has been proven in this case, you may, unless
`
`otherwise instructed, consider the testimony of all witnesses, regardless of which party called
`
`them, and you may consider all exhibits received and admitted into evidence, regardless of which
`
`party produced or presented them.
`
`You, the jurors, are the sole judges of the credibility and believability of all witnesses and
`
`the weight and effect of their testimony. When considering the witnesses’ credibility and
`
`believability, ask yourself: Did the witness impress you as truthful? Did he or she have a reason
`
`not to tell the truth? Did he or she have any personal interest in the outcome of the case? Did the
`
`witness seem to have a good memory? Did he or she have the opportunity and ability to observe
`
`accurately the things that they testified about? Did the witness appear to understand the questions
`
`clearly and answer them directly? And, of course, did the witness’s testimony differ from the
`
`testimony of any other witness? And if it did, how did it differ?
`
`Certain testimony in this case has been presented to you through depositions. A deposition
`
`is the sworn, recorded answers to questions asked to a witness in advance of the trial. In trials
`
`such as this, it is difficult, if not impossible, to get every witness physically present in the court at
`
`the same time. If a witness cannot be present to testify in person from the witness stand, the
`
`witness’s testimony may be presented, under oath, in the form of a deposition. Before this trial,
`
`attorneys representing the parties in this case questioned these deposition witnesses under oath.
`
`At that time, a court reporter was present and recorded the sworn testimony. Both sides have had
`
`the opportunity to select portions of that testimony to be played in open court. Deposition
`
`testimony is entitled to the same consideration as testimony given by a witness in person from the
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 8 of 80 PageID #:
`10136
`
`
`
`witness stand. Accordingly, you should determine the credibility and importance of deposition
`
`testimony, to the best of your ability, just as if the witness had testified in court in person.
`
`Some testimony you heard was translated from another language. When considering a
`
`witness’s testimony, it is not relevant whether their testimony was in English or translated from
`
`another language into English.
`
`This case included both “fact” and “expert” witnesses. When knowledge of technical
`
`subject matters 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 or her opinion on those
`
`technical matters. However, you are not required to accept that opinion. As with any other
`
`witness, it is solely up to you to decide whether to believe that an expert witness, or any witness
`
`for that matter, gave correct or incorrect testimony or whether or not you believe what they said.
`
`Those kinds of decisions, judging the credibility and believability of each and every witness, are
`
`particularly within your area of responsibility as the jury. You should keep in mind, of course,
`
`that a simple mistake by a witness does not necessarily mean that the witness was not telling the
`
`truth as he or she remembers it, because people may forget some things or remember other things
`
`inaccurately. So if a witness has made a misstatement, you need to consider whether that
`
`misstatement was an intentional falsehood or simply an innocent lapse of memory. And the
`
`significance of that may depend on whether it has to do with an important fact or with only an
`
`unimportant detail. In deciding whether to accept or rely upon the testimony of any witness, you
`
`may also consider any bias of the witness. Unless I instruct you otherwise, you may properly
`
`determine that 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.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 9 of 80 PageID #:
`10137
`
`
`
`As I have told you previously, the attorneys in this case are advocates for their competing
`
`clients and have a duty to object when they believe evidence is offered that should not be admitted
`
`under the rules of this Court. When the Court sustained an objection to a question addressed to a
`
`witness, you must disregard the question entirely, and may draw no inference from its wording or
`
`speculate about what the witness would have said if he or she had been permitted to answer. If the
`
`objection was overruled, then you may treat the answer to that question just as you would treat the
`
`answer to any other question. By allowing testimony or other evidence to be introduced over the
`
`objection of an attorney, the Court did not indicate any opinion as to the weight of such evidence.
`
`
`
`At times during the trial it was necessary for the Court to talk with the lawyers here at the
`
`bench out of your hearing, or by calling a recess and talking to them when you were out of the
`
`courtroom. This happened because often during a trial, something comes up that does not involve
`
`the jury. You should not speculate on what was said during such discussions that took place outside
`
`of your presence.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 10 of 80 PageID #:
`10138
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`[Agreed] Exhibits & Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`
`
`Each party used exhibits to prove its case. Both parties worked very diligently with the
`
`Court to go through all the exhibits that were shown to you over the course of the trial. Those
`
`exhibits were deemed admissible, and you should accept those exhibits as reliable evidence.
`
`Certain exhibits shown to you during the trial were illustrations of the evidence, but are not
`
`themselves evidence. We call these types of exhibits “demonstrative exhibits.” Demonstrative
`
`exhibits are a party’s description, picture, or model to describe something involved in this trial.
`
`Demonstrative exhibits themselves are not evidence, but a witness’s testimony during which they
`
`use a demonstrative exhibit is evidence. The demonstrative exhibits will not be available for you
`
`to view during your deliberations. [GTP’s Proposal: If your recollection of the evidence differs
`
`from your recollection of the demonstrative exhibit, rely on your recollection of the evidence.] 3 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 GTP: Adapted from Final Jury Instructions in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L v. LG Elecs.,
`Inc., No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP at 1
`
` Samsung: Samsung objects to this addition as confusing. Does this instruction ask jurors to
`weigh their various recollections? This additional language is not found in the May 2020 Federal
`Circuit Bar Association’s Model Patent Jury Instructions.
`
` 4
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 11 of 80 PageID #:
`10139
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Burdens of Proof
`
`In any legal action, facts must be proved by a required amount of evidence known as the
`
`“burden of proof.” The burden of proof in this case is on the Plaintiff, Gesture Technology
`
`Partners, LLC (“GTP”), for some issues, and on the Defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., who I’ll refer to as “Samsung” for other issues
`
`[GTP 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 that a claim is more
`
`probably true than not true. Sometimes this is talked about as being the greater weight and degree
`
`of credible testimony.
`
`Samsung has the burden of proving patent invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that produces in your mind a firm belief or conviction
`
`as to the truth of the matter sought to be established. It is evidence so clear, direct, weighty and
`
`convincing as to enable you to come to a clear conviction without hesitancy.]5
`
`. [Samsung Proposal: There are two burdens of proof that you will apply in this case:
`
`“preponderance of the evidence” and “clear and convincing evidence.” “Preponderance of the
`
`evidence” means evidence that persuades you that a claim is “more likely true than not true.”
`
`“Clear and convincing evidence” means evidence that makes a claim “highly probably” to be true.
`
`
`
`GTP has the burden of proving patent infringement by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`This means GTP must show that it is “more likely true than not true” that certain Samsung products
`
`
`5 GTP: Jury Instructions, Elbit Systems Land and C4I LTD, et al v. Hughes Network Systems, LLC,
`et al; Civil Action No. 2:15cv37, Docket No. 485 (E.D. Tex., August 8, 2017) (R. Schroeder) at
`5.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 12 of 80 PageID #:
`10140
`
`
`
`meet each and every limitation of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit. GTP also has the
`
`burden of proving damages for patent infringement by a preponderance of the evidence. This
`
`means GTP must show that it is “more likely true than not true” that it is entitled to a specific
`
`damages award.
`
`Samsung has the burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. This
`
`means Samsung must show it is “highly probable” that the Asserted Claims are invalid.]67
`
`Now, these two standards are different from what you have heard about in criminal
`
`proceedings, where a fact must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. On a scale of the various
`
`standards of proof, as you move from preponderance of the evidence, where proof need be only
`
`sufficient to tip the scales in favor of the party proving the fact, to at the other end, beyond a
`
`reasonable doubt, where the fact must be proven to a very high degree of certainty, you can think
`
`of clear and convincing evidence as being between these two ends of the spectrum. The beyond a
`
`reasonable doubt standard of proof does not apply in a civil case like this.
`
`
`
`In determining whether any fact has been proven, you may, unless otherwise instructed,
`
`consider the stipulations of the parties, the testimony of the witnesses, regardless of who may have
`
`
`6 GTP: GTP objects to this instruction because it is less clear than Plaintiff’s proposal.
`
` 7
`
` Samsung: Samsung’s proposed language is the more clear and accurate articulation of the law.
`See Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 418 F.3d 1326, 1341 n.15 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(“A claim for patent infringement must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, which
`simply requires proving that infringement was more likely than not to have occurred.”) (internal
`citations omitted);Buildex, Inc. v. Kason Indus., Inc., 849 F.2d 1461, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citing
`Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316 (1984)) (“Clear and convincing evidence has been
`described as evidence which produces in the mind of the trier of fact an abiding conviction that
`the truth of the factual contentions are highly probable.”) (internal citations and quotations
`omitted). Further, and perhaps most importantly, the language Samsung proposes is taken directly
`from Section B.4.3b-1 of the May 2020 Federal Circuit Bar Association’s Model Patent Jury
`Instructions (“[Alleged Infringer] must convince you of this by clear and convincing evidence, i.e.,
`that the evidence highly probably demonstrates that the claim(s) is/are invalid.”) (emphasis
`added).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 13 of 80 PageID #:
`10141
`
`
`
`called them, and all exhibits received into evidence during trial, regardless of who may have
`
`produced or presented them.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 14 of 80 PageID #:
`10142
`
`
`
`III. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
`
`As I did at the start of the case, I will first give you a summary of each side’s contentions
`
`in this case. I will then provide you with detailed instructions on what each side must prove to win
`
`on each of its contentions.
`
`As I previously advised you, this case concerns four United States Patents that GTP has
`
`asserted against Samsung: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,933,431, 8,194,924, 8,553,079, and 8,878,949. You
`
`have heard the parties refer to each of these four U.S. Patents by the last three numbers of the
`
`patent number. For example, U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 was referred to as “the ’431 Patent,” and
`
`so on for the other three patents. Further, the parties often referred to the four patents collectively
`
`as the “Patents-in-Suit.”
`
`In this case, the Plaintiff, GTP, seeks money damages from Samsung for allegedly
`
`infringing the Patents-in-Suit by using certain applications and/or features in conjunction with
`
`various cellular phones and tablets in the United States. The parties and I often referred to these
`
`mobile device products as the “Accused Products.” They include various smartphones and tables.
`
`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 alleges that “applications” or “features,” when operated by
`
`the Accused Products, cause the Accused Products to infringe the Patents-in-Suit. These
`
`“features” were often referred to as the [GTP’s Proposal: “Features.”] 8 [Samsung’s Proposal:
`
`
`8 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
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 15 of 80 PageID #:
`10143
`
`
`
`“Accused Features.”] The following [GTP’s Proposal: “Features”] [Samsung’s Proposal:
`
`“Accused Features”]9 were discussed in this case: Air Gestures, AR Emoji, Face ID Unlock,
`
`Intelligent Scan Unlock, Iris Scan Unlock, Palm Solution, and Smart Stay. Specifically, GTP has
`
`accused Samsung of using these [GTP’s Proposal: Features] [Samsung’s Proposal: “Accused
`
`Features”] in conjunction with hardware in the Accused Products to infringe Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
`
`6, 7, 10, 12 and 14 of the ’924 Patent, 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 13, 14, 16 and 18 of the ’949 Patent,
`
`and Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 30 of the ’079 patent. All of
`
`these claims are sometimes referred to as the “Asserted Claims.”
`
`Most of the claims relate to claimed “apparatuses”—or, “products”—and have been
`
`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 have been 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.”
`
`
`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.
`
`
` 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. See, e.g., Complaint at pg. 6 (“Examples of
`Samsung’s Marketing of the Accused Features”), id. ¶ 46 (“Such steps by Samsung included,
`among other things, advising or directing end-users and other third-parties to use the Accused
`Features in the Accused Products in an infringing manner . . .”). GTP cannot articulate any unfair
`prejudice with Samsung’s proposed language.
`
` 9
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 16 of 80 PageID #:
`10144
`
`
`
`GTP is seeking damages for the alleged infringement by Samsung. Samsung denies that it
`
`has infringed any Asserted Claim of the Patents-in-Suit. In other words, Samsung contends that it
`
`did not use products that infringe any of the Asserted Claims.
`
`Samsung also argues that the Asserted Claims are invalid for multiple reasons. First,
`
`Samsung argues that the Asserted Claims are invalid because they are anticipated by, or obvious
`
`in light of, the prior art. Second, Samsung argues that certain Asserted Claims are invalid because
`
`they fail the written description requirement. Third, Samsung argues that the Asserted Claims are
`
`invalid because the Patents-in-Suit do not name a rightful inventor to the inventions, Mr. Peter
`
`Smith. Samsung also denies that GTP is entitled to any damages.
`
`
`
`Invalidity and infringement are separate and distinct issues that must be separately decided
`
`by you, the jury. Your job is to decide whether Samsung has infringed the Asserted Claims of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit, and whether any of the Asserted are invalid. If you decide that any Asserted Claim
`
`has been infringed and is not invalid, you will then need to decide any money damages to be
`
`awarded to GTP as compensation for the infringement.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 17 of 80 PageID #:
`10145
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`PATENT CLAIMS
`A.
`
`Role of Patent Claims
`
`Before you can decide many of the issues in this case, you will need to understand the role
`
`of patent “claims.”
`
`
`
`Patent claims are the numbered sentences at the end of each patent. The claims are
`
`important because it is the words of the claims that define what a patent covers. The figures and
`
`text in the rest of the patent provide a description and/or examples of the invention, and provide a
`
`context for the claims, but it is the claims that define the scope of the patent’s coverage. Therefore,
`
`what a patent covers depends, in turn, on what each of its claims covers. Each claim may be
`
`narrower or broader than another claim by setting forth more or fewer requirements. These
`
`requirements are often called “limitations.”
`
`The coverage of a patent is assessed claim-by-claim. To know what a claim covers, a claim
`
`sets forth, in words, a set of requirements (or, limitations). Each claim sets forth its limitations in
`
`a single sentence. The requirements of a claim are often referred to as “claim elements” or “claim
`
`limitations.” If a product satisfies each of the claim limitations, then it infringes the claim. Another
`
`way of framing this is to say that when a product meets all of the limitations of a claim, the claim
`
`“covers” that product, and that product “falls within” the scope of that claim. If a product is
`
`missing even one limitation, the product is not covered by that claim; it does not fall within that
`
`clam. If the product is not covered by the claim, that claim is not infringed.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 18 of 80 PageID #:
`10146
`
`
`
`1.
`
`[AGREED] Independent and Dependent Claims
`
`This case involves two types of patent claims: “independent claims” and “dependent
`
`claims.” An independent claim does not refer to any other claim of the patent. An independent
`
`claim sets forth all the limitations that must be met in order to be covered by that claim. Thus, it
`
`is not necessary to look at any other claim to determine what an independent claim covers. In this
`
`case, Claim 1 of the ’924 patent is an independent claim, Claims 1, 7, and 14 of the ’431 patent
`
`are independent claims, Claim 13 of the ’949 patent is an independent claim, and Claims 1, 11 and
`
`21 of the ’079 patent are independent claims.
`
`Other claims being asserted in this case are dependent claims. A dependent claim does not
`
`itself recite all of the limitations of the claim, but refers to another claim or claims for some of its
`
`requirements. In this way, the claim “depends” on another claim. A dependent claim incorporates
`
`all of the limitations of the claim or claims to which it refers. The dependent claim then adds its
`
`own additional limitations. To determine what a dependent claim covers, it’s necessary to look at
`
`both the dependent claim and any other claim or claims to which it refers. A product that meets
`
`all of the limitations of both (1) the dependent claim and (2) all of the limitations of all of the other
`
`claim or claims to which it refers is covered by that dependent claim. A product that does not meet
`
`all of the limitations of both (1) the dependent claim and (2) all of the limitations of all of the other
`
`claim or claims to which it refers, is not covered by that dependent claim.
`
`
`
`In this case, there are 49 dependent claims that have been asserted: Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11,
`
`12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 30 of the ’431 Patent; Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
`
`7, 10, 12, and 14 of the ’924 Patent, Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 30 of
`
`the ’079 Patent; and Claims 14, 16 and 18 of the ’949 Patent.
`
`Below is a chart outlining the independent and corresponding dependent claims of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 19 of 80 PageID #:
`10147
`
`
`
`
`
`Independent
`Claims
`
`’431 Patent
`
`’924 Patent
`
`’079 Patent
`
`’949 Patent
`
`1
`
`7
`
`14
`
`1
`
`1
`11
`21
`
`13
`
`Dependent
`Claims
`
`2, 3, 6
`
`8, 9, 11, 12, 13
`
`15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
`20, 22, 22, 25, 26,
`27, 28, 30
`
`2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10,
`12, 14
`
`2, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9
`14, 15, 19
`22, 23, 24, 25, 30
`
`14, 16, 18
`
`2.
`
`[AGREED] Claim Construction
`
`You will first need to understand what each claim covers in order to decide whether or not
`
`there is infringement of the claim and to decide whether or not the claim is invalid. The first step
`
`is to understand the meaning of the words used in the patent claim.
`
`The law says that it is my role to define the terms of the claims, and it is your role to apply
`
`my definitions to the issues that you are asked to decide in this case. Therefore, as I explained to
`
`you at the start of the case, I have determined the meaning of certain claim terms at issue in this
`
`case and I have provided to you my definitions in your Juror Notebooks. These definitions are
`
`located in the Appendix to your Juror Notebook. You must accept my definitions of these words
`
`in the claims as being correct. It is your job to take these definitions and apply them to the issues
`
`that you are asked to decide, including the issues of infringement and invalidity. You should
`
`disregard any evidence presented at trial that contradicts or is inconsistent with the constructions
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-10 Filed 01/25/22 Page 20 of 80 PageID #:
`10148
`
`
`
`and definitions that I have given you. For claim limitations that I have not construed —that is,
`
`limitations that I have not interpreted or defined—you are to use the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of the limitations as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, which is to say,