Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 1 of 28 PageID #:
`10220
`
`
`EXHIBIT M
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 2 of 28 PageID #:
`10221
`
`
`
`IN THE 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
`
`
`
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`In answering the following questions and completing this Verdict Form, you are to follow
`
`all the instructions I have given you in the Court’s Final Jury Instructions. Your answers to each
`
`question must be unanimous. Some of the questions contain legal terms that are defined and
`
`explained in detail in the Final Jury Instructions. You should refer to and consider the Final Jury
`
`Instructions as you answer the questions in this Verdict Form.
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 3 of 28 PageID #:
`10222
`
`
`
`As used herein, the following terms have the following meanings:
`
` “GTP” means Gesture Technology Partners, LLC.
`
` “Samsung” means Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc.
`
` The “’924 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924.
`
` The “’431 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431.
`
` The “’949 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949.
`
` The “’079 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079.
`
` The “Asserted Claims” refers collectively to 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 4 of 28 PageID #:
`10223
`
`
`
`IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU FOLLOW THE
`INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED IN THIS VERDICT FORM.
`
`READ THEM CAREFULLY AND
`ENSURE YOUR VERDICT COMPLIES WITH THEM.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 5 of 28 PageID #:
`10224
`
`
`
`QUESTION 11
`
`Has GTP proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung infringed any of the
`following Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit?
`
`For each Asserted Claim, answer either “Yes” (infringement) or “No” (no infringement).
`
`
`’431 Patent
`Claim 1
`Claim 2
`Claim 3
`Claim 6
`Claim 7
`Claim 8
`Claim 9
`Claim 11
`Claim 12
`Claim 13
`
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`
`
`1 Samsung opposes GTP’s proposed question on infringement given the complexity of this case
`and the number of Asserted Claims for each of the Patents-in-Suit. Samsung’s proposal will better
`assist the jury in reaching its verdict. Samsung’s proposal is also necessary for the Court, the
`parties, and the Federal Circuit to unpack the jury’s answers on the infringement question. Settled
`law requires breaking out the patents to obtain separate findings. See Verizon Servs. Corp. v.
`Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that in a situation--such
`as this one--where the jury rendered a single verdict on damages, without breaking down the
`damages attributable to each patent, the normal rule would require a new trial as to damages).
`Samsung’s proposal is routinely included in this Court’s verdict forms. See, e.g., Intellectual
`Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp., No. 2:16-CV-00980-JRG, Dkt. 535 (verdict form breaking down
`each patent claim by claim); Acorn Semi, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 2:19-CV-00347-
`JRG, Dkt. 368 (same); Genband U.S. LLC v. Metaswitch Networks, No. 2:14-cv-33-JRG, Dkt. 465
`(same).
`
`Samsung further objects to GTP’s proposal that charges the jury with finding a verdict of willful
`infringement, as the Court dismissed with prejudice GTP’s willful infringement claims pursuant
`to the parties’ joint stipulation. Dkt. 201 at 2.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 6 of 28 PageID #:
`10225
`
`
`
`Claim 14
`Claim 15
`Claim 16
`Claim 17
`Claim 18
`Claim 19
`Claim 20
`Claim 21
`Claim 22
`Claim 25
`Claim 26
`Claim 27
`Claim 28
`Claim 30
`
`
`’924 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 2
`Claim 3
`Claim 4
`Claim 5
`Claim 6
`Claim 7
`Claim 10
`Claim 12
`Claim 14
`
`
`
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 7 of 28 PageID #:
`10226
`
`
`
`’079 Patent
`Claim 1
`Claim 2
`Claim 3
`Claim 4
`Claim 5
`Claim 6
`Claim 8
`Claim 9
`Claim 11
`Claim 14
`Claim 15
`Claim 19
`Claim 21
`Claim 22
`Claim 23
`Claim 24
`Claim 25
`Claim 30
`
`
`’949 Patent
`Claim 13
`Claim 14
`Claim 16
`Claim 18
`
`
`
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`_________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`
`__________
`__________
`__________
`__________
`
`Please proceed to the next question.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 8 of 28 PageID #:
`10227
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 9 of 28 PageID #:
`10228
`
`
`
`QUESTION 22
`
`
`
`Did Samsung prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following Asserted
`
`Claims are anticipated by the prior art?
`
`For each Asserted Claim below, answer “Yes” or “No.”.
`
`’431 Patent:
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 7
`
`Claim 8
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`2 Samsung opposes GTP’s proposal and argues that these jury questions should be broken down
`separately for all invalidity theories. GTP’s proposal regarding invalidity would allow the jury to
`answer “no” for each Asserted Claim if it found the Claim to be valid—without requiring the jury
`to specify which one of the theories it found was proven on these facts. That would severely
`prejudice Defendants’ ability to prosecute an appeal and would unnecessarily complicate an appeal
`by requiring Defendants to challenge all invalidity theories for each claim that the jury answered
`“no,” even though the jury may not have found that all the theories were insufficiently proven. An
`entirely new trial would be required because neither this Court nor the Federal Circuit could
`determine which theory (or theories) the jury found was unproven. See i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft
`Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 849-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that when a “jury was told it could rely on
`any of two or more independent legal theories, one of which was defective,” the general verdict
`must be set aside). Settled law requires breaking out the independent theories of liability to obtain
`separate findings, such that there can be a meaningful appeal of any finding by the jury and to
`avoid the need for a new trial if only certain theories were found to be supported by the evidence
`and the jury’s findings. See Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. Ampex Corp., 190 F.3d 1300, 1303-04 (Fed.
`Cir. 1999). Samsung’s proposal is routinely included in this Court’s verdict forms. See, e.g.,
`Droplets, Inc. v. Overstock.com, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00401-JRG, Dkt. 371 (verdict form having
`separate questions for anticipation and obviousness); Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple
`Inc., No. 6:12-cv-00100-JRG, Dkt. 399 (same).
`
`Samsung incorporates this explanation for Questions #26.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 10 of 28 PageID #:
`10229
`
`
`
`Claim 9
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 11
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 12
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 15
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 16
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 17
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 18
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 19
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 20
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 21
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 22
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 25
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 26
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 27
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 28
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 30
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`’924 Patent:
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 6
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 12
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 11 of 28 PageID #:
`10230
`
`
`
`
`
`’079 Patent:
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 4
`
`Claim 5
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 8
`
`Claim 9
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 11
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 15
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 19
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 21
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 22
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 23
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 24
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 25
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 30
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`’949 Patent:
`
`Claim 13
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 12 of 28 PageID #:
`10231
`
`
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 16
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 18
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Please proceed to the next question.
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 13 of 28 PageID #:
`10232
`
`
`
`QUESTION 3
`
`
`
`Did Samsung prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of the following Asserted
`
`Claims are obvious based on a combination of the prior art?
`
`For each Asserted Claim below, answer “Yes” or “No.”
`
`
`
`’431 Patent:
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 7
`
`Claim 8
`
`Claim 9
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 11
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 12
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 13
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 15
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 16
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 17
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 18
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 19
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 20
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 14 of 28 PageID #:
`10233
`
`
`
`Claim 21
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 22
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 25
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 26
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 27
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 28
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 30
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`’924 Patent
`Claim 1
`Claim 2
`Claim 3
`Claim 4
`Claim 5
`Claim 6
`Claim 7
`Claim 10
`Claim 12
`Claim 14
`
`
`
`’079 Patent:
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 3
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 15 of 28 PageID #:
`10234
`
`
`
`Claim 4
`
`Claim 5
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 8
`
`Claim 9
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 11
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 15
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 19
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 21
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 22
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 23
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 24
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 25
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 30
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`’949 Patent:
`
`Claim 13
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 16
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 18
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`Please proceed to the next question.
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 16 of 28 PageID #:
`10235
`
`
`
`QUESTION 4
`
`Did Samsung prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following Asserted
`
`Claims are invalid because they do not meet the written description requirement?
`
`For each Asserted Claim below, answer “Yes” or “No.”
`
`
`
`’431 Patent:
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 7
`
`Claim 8
`
`Claim 9
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 11
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 12
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 13
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 15
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 16
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 17
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 18
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 19
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 20
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 17 of 28 PageID #:
`10236
`
`
`
`Claim 21
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 22
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 25
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 26
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 27
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 28
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 30
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`’924 Patent:
`
`Claim 1
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 2
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 3
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 4
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 5
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 6
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 7
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 10
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 12
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`’079 Patent:
`
`Claim 11
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 18 of 28 PageID #:
`10237
`
`
`
`Claim 15
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 19
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`’949 Patent:
`
`Claim 13
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 16
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 18
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`
`
`Please proceed to the next question.
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 19 of 28 PageID #:
`10238
`
`
`
`QUESTION 5
`
`Did Samsung prove by clear and convincing evidence that apart from the abstract idea
`
`itself, applying the abstract idea using a computer, or limiting the abstract idea to a particular
`
`technological environment such as a handheld or other mobile device, the Asserted Claims only
`
`involve technologies and activities that were well-understood, routine, and conventional, from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the priority date of the Patents-in-Suit?
`
`For each Asserted Claim below, answer “Yes” or “No.”
`
`
`
`’431 Patent:
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 7
`
`Claim 8
`
`Claim 9
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 11
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 12
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 13
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 15
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 16
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 17
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 20 of 28 PageID #:
`10239
`
`
`
`Claim 18
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 19
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 20
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 21
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 22
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 25
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 26
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 27
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 28
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 30
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`’924 Patent:
`
`Claim 1
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 2
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 3
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 4
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 5
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 6
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 7
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 10
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 12
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 21 of 28 PageID #:
`10240
`
`
`
`’079 Patent:
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 4
`
`Claim 5
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 8
`
`Claim 9
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 11
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 15
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 19
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 21
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 22
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 23
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 24
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 25
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 30
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`’949 Patent:
`
`Claim 13
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`-20-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 22 of 28 PageID #:
`10241
`
`
`
`Claim 16
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 18
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`Please proceed to the next question.
`
`
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 23 of 28 PageID #:
`10242
`
`
`
`
`
`Did Samsung prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Peter Smith is a rightful
`
`QUESTION 6
`
`co-inventor of any of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit?
`
`For each Asserted Claim below, answer “Yes” or “No.”
`
`‘431 Patent:
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 7
`
`Claim 8
`
`Claim 9
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 11
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 12
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 13
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 15
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 16
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 17
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 18
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 19
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 20
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 21
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`-22-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 24 of 28 PageID #:
`10243
`
`
`
`Claim 22
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 25
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 26
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 27
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 28
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 30
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`’924 Patent:
`
`Claim 1
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 2
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 3
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 4
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 5
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 6
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 7
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 10
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 12
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`’079 Patent:
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 3
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`-23-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 25 of 28 PageID #:
`10244
`
`
`
`Claim 4
`
`Claim 5
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 8
`
`Claim 9
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 11
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 15
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 19
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 21
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 22
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 23
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 24
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 25
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 30
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`’949 Patent:
`
`Claim 13
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 14
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 16
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`Claim 18
`
`YES: ____ NO: ____
`
`
`
`Please proceed to the next question.
`
`-24-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 26 of 28 PageID #:
`10245
`
`
`
` ANSWER THIS QUESTION ONLY IF YOU FOUND ONE OR MORE OF THE
`ASSERTED CLAIMS TO BE INFRINGED AND NOT INVALID
`
`QUESTION 7
`
` What sum of money, if any, paid now in cash, has GTP proven, by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence, would compensate GTP for its damages resulting from infringement?
`
` Answer in United States Dollars and Cents, if any:
`
` $ ______________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Please proceed to the next question.
`
`-25-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 27 of 28 PageID #:
`10246
`
`
`
`ANSWER THIS QUESTION ONLY IF YOU ANSWERED QUESTION 7
`
`QUESTION 8
`
` Did you calculate the sum listed in response to Question 7 based on a fully paid-up lump
`
`sum or a running royalty (please check only one)?
`
`_____ Fully paid-up lump Sum
`
`_____ Running Royalty
`
`
`
`
`
`-26-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 214-12 Filed 01/25/22 Page 28 of 28 PageID #:
`10247
`
`
`
`FINAL PAGE OF JURY VERDICT FORM
`
`
`
`You have now reached the end of the Verdict Form and should review it to ensure
`
`it accurately reflects your unanimous determinations. The jury foreperson should then sign and
`
`date the Verdict Form in the spaces below. Once this is done, notify the Court Security Officer
`
`that you have reached a verdict. The jury foreperson should keep the Verdict Form and bring it
`
`when the jury is brought back into the courtroom.
`
`
`
` Signed this ___ day of March 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`
`
`
`JURY FOREPERSON
`
`-27-
`
`