Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 12227
`.Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 12227
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`'5—'i'7'“fii".—'i'"'f'Ti"""'f"'i—‘1"?'T"Ti‘-i'.i::'i'i'1"?:'T""'::::"'i"i
`—MAXELL,]:sz,m”“ifT"Tit-“TI-T-f-T-T—‘Tmm‘ .
`'
`Plaintiff
`Case No. 5:16-cv—00179-RWS
`l
`
`V.
`
`ZTE (US A) INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`VERDICT FORIW
`
`In answering these questions, you are to follow all of the instructions I have
`
`given in the Final Jury Instructions. Your answers to each question must be
`
`unanimous. In this verdict form, “Maxell” refers to Maxell, Ltd. and ZTE refers to
`ZTE (USA) Inc. As used below, the ’ 193 patent refers to US. Patent No. 6,408,193;
`
`the ’317 patent refers to US. Patent No. 6,748,317; the ”493 patent refers to US
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493; the ’729 patent refers to US. Patent No. 8,736,729; the ’491
`
`patent refers to US Patent No. 6,816,491; the ’695 patent refers to US. Patent No.
`
`8,098,695; and the ’794 patent refers to US. Patent No. 6,329,794.
`
`
`.Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 12227
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`'5—'i'7'“fii".—'i'"'f'Ti"""'f"'i—‘1"?'T"Ti‘-i'.i::'i'i'1"?:'T""'::::"'i"i
`—MAXELL,]:sz,m”“ifT"Tit-“TI-T-f-T-T—‘Tmm‘ .
`'
`Plaintiff
`Case No. 5:16-cv—00179-RWS
`l
`
`V.
`
`ZTE (US A) INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`VERDICT FORIW
`
`In answering these questions, you are to follow all of the instructions I have
`
`given in the Final Jury Instructions. Your answers to each question must be
`
`unanimous. In this verdict form, “Maxell” refers to Maxell, Ltd. and ZTE refers to
`ZTE (USA) Inc. As used below, the ’ 193 patent refers to US. Patent No. 6,408,193;
`
`the ’317 patent refers to US. Patent No. 6,748,317; the ”493 patent refers to US
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493; the ’729 patent refers to US. Patent No. 8,736,729; the ’491
`
`patent refers to US Patent No. 6,816,491; the ’695 patent refers to US. Patent No.
`
`8,098,695; and the ’794 patent refers to US. Patent No. 6,329,794.
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 12228
`Case 5:16-cv-OOl79—RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 12228
`
`1A. Did Maxell prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ZTE (USA)
`
`Inc. infringes the following claims of the following patents?
`
`’317 Patent: Answer “Yes” or “No” for the ZMaX 2 with pie-installed AT&T
`Navigator, which is representative of the ’3 l7 Accused Products.
`
`Claim 1: Q_C€
`
`Claim 2: %g$
`
`Claim 3:
`
`5% gs
`
`’794 Patent: Answer “Yes” or “No” for the ZMax 2, which is representative of
`the 794 Accused Products.
`
`Claimi:
`
`1433
`
`Claim2:
`
`tat-:3
`
`’193 Patent: Answer “Yes” or “No” for the ZMaX 2, which is representative of
`the ’193 Accused Products.
`
`Claim 1:
`
`tags
`
`’491 Patent: Answer “Yes” or “No” for the ZMax 2, which is representative of
`the ”491 Accused Products, except for the Axon 7.
`
`Claim 1:
`
`iics
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-OOl79—RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 12229
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 12229
`
`Claim 8: 55:5
`
`--’491Patent—Answel‘EYeS”01‘”-N0”f01theAX0n7 0111Y“““"""'
`
`’695 Patent: Answer “Yes” or “No” for the ZMax 2, which is representative of
`the ’695 Accused Products, except for the Axon 7.
`
`Claim 1:
`
`legs
`
`’695 Patent: Answer “Yes” or “No” for the Axon 7 only.
`
`Claim 1: 45135—
`
`’493 Patent: Answer “Yes” or “No” for the Max Duo LTE, which is representative
`of the ’493 Accused Products, except for the Axon 7.
`
`Claim 5:
`
`1,553
`
`I ’493 Patent: Answer “Yes” or “No” for the Axon 7 only.
`
`Claim 5:
`
`géeg
`
`‘ ’729 Patent: Answer “Yes” or “No” for the Max Duo LTE, which'is representative
`of the ’729 Accused Products, except for the Axon 7.
`
`'
`
`'
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 12230
`Case 5:16-cv-OOl79—RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 12230
`
`
`
`’729 Patent: Answer “Yes” or “No” for the Axon 7 only.
`
`Claim 1:
`
`g§cs
`
`Page 4 01°10
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 12231
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 12231
`
`If you have answered “Yes” regarding a claim in question 1A, then continue
`
`to answer “Yes” or “No” for that same claim in section 1B. If you answered
`
`_jmT:T:“Noni—"regardingaclalmInquestlonIA,thenskipthlsT'E'lii'és'titin-'iifi'fiti'est‘io'flt'lEff???"Tiff? "Iiiiii'::;'i":':':'
`
`for that claim.
`
`1B. Did Maxell prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ZTE (USA)
`
`Inc.’s infringement, if any, was willful?
`
`’317 Patent: Answer “Yes” or “No” for the ’3 17 Patent.
`
`Ciaim 1:
`
`gécg.
`
`Claim 2:
`
`35 53
`
`Claim 3:
`
`g! :5
`
`’794 Patent: Answer “Yes” or “No” for the ’794 Patent.
`
`Claimi:
`
`téCQ
`
`C1aim2:
`
`35:9
`
`’193 Patent: Answer “Yes” or “No” for the ’ 193 Patent.
`
`Claim 1:
`
`gégg
`
`’491 Patent: Answer “Yes” or “No” for the ’491 Patent.
`
`Claim 1:
`
`5583
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 12232
`Case 5:16-cv-OOl79—RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 12232
`
`’695 Patent: Answer “Yes” or “No” for the ’695 Patent.
`
`Claim 1:
`
`3533
`
`’493 Patent: Answer “Yes” 01"‘No” for the ’493Patent.
`
`Claim 5: 4555*—
`
`’729 Patent: Answer “Yes” or “No” for the ’729 Patent.
`
`Claim 1:
`
`gégg
`
`Page 6 0f 10
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 12233
`Case 5:16-cv-OOl79—RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 12233
`
`3.
`
`' Did ZTE prove by clear and convincing evidence that the following
`
`listed claims of the following patents are invalid?
`
`IfyoufindtheclaimlnvahdanswerYesotherw1seanswerNo
`
`' ’317 Patent:
`
`Claim 1:
`
`hi 0
`
`Claim 2:
`
`E14 0
`
`Claim 3:
`
`_ E 0
`
`__
`
`’193 Patent:
`
`‘ Claim 1:
`
`E Q
`
`4.
`
`Did ZTE prove by clear and convincing evidence that the claim
`
`elements of the following claims in the ‘317 patent were well-understood,
`
`routine, and conventional to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of July 12,
`
`1999?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No.”
`
`’317 Patent:
`
`Claim 1: '
`
`_ g :8
`
`Claim 2:
`
`‘
`
`35 c9
`
`'
`
`Claim 3:
`
`1533
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 12234
`Case 5:16-cv-OOl79—RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 12234
`
`l
`
`Did ZTE prove by clear and convincing evidence that the claim
`5.
`elements of the following claims in the ‘794 patent were well—understood,
`routine, and conventional to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of May-22,
`______2000?"___“
`-.-.
`.
`..,....'l,
`_____'_ _________ ““
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No.”
`
`W:
`
`Claim 1:
`
`_,%_C§__.___
`
`Claim 2:
`
`59 :39:
`
`Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 12235
`Case 5:16-cv-OOl79—RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 12235
`
`6. What sum of money, if paid in cash, do you find from a preponderance
`
`of the evidence would fairly and reasonably compensate Maxeil for ZTE
`
`(USA)IncsInfringementofanypatentclaimthatlsnotlnvahdIfany"
`
`Answer with the amount:
`
`S 3 5 . 5
`
`ESHSSDYW
`
`'
`
`Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-OOl79—RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 10 of 10 PaQeID #: 12236
`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 228 Filed 06/29/18 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 12236
`
`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 and notify the Court
`
`' ""I'Iffi-f-f-I-iii'?i"i'i'is'éétitityi'iorfi'é'éiétHayes-have?restatedits veiniérrtrrfisjmayratapetea-flew{Herzraa-ifirt
`possession of the verdict form and bring it when the jury is brought back into the
`courtroom.
`
`Signed this ’23 day of
`
`53 “3Q
`
`, 2018.
`
`Jury !orep!fi!on
`
`Page 10 of 10
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
