Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 559-1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 29698
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A
`
`Verdict Form
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A
`
`Verdict Form
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 559-1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 29699
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`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 “Apple” refers to Apple Inc. As used below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ’317 patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,748,317;
`
`the ’999 patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,580,999;
`
`the ’498 patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,430,498;
`
`the ’493 patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493;
`
`the ’438 patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 7,116,438;
`
`the ’193 patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,408,193;
`
`the ’991 patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991;
`
`the ’306 patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,928,306;
`
`the ’794 patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,329,794; and
`
`the ’586 patent refers to U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586.
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 559-1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 29700
`
`1A. Did Maxell prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple infringes the
`following claims of the following patents?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” as to each claim.
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 1:
`
`
`Claim 17:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’317 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal, or [ ]
`under the Doctrine of Equivalents.]
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal, or [ ]
`under the Doctrine of Equivalents.]
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 3:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’999 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal, or [ ] under
`the Doctrine of Equivalents.]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’498 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal, or [ ]
`under the Doctrine of Equivalents.]
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal, or [ ]
`under the Doctrine of Equivalents.]
`
`
`’493 Patent:
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 3:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 13:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 559-1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 29701
`
`
`
`Claim 5:
`
`
`Claim 6:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal]
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal, or [ ]
`under the Doctrine of Equivalents.]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 1:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 2:
`
`Claim 4:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’438 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal]
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal]
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 1:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 6:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’193 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal, or [ ] under
`the Doctrine of Equivalents.]
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal, or [ ] under
`the Doctrine of Equivalents.]
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 559-1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 29702
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 4:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 12:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 15:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’991 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal]
`
`
`’306 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal, or [ ]
`under the Doctrine of Equivalents.]
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal, or [ ]
`under the Doctrine of Equivalents.]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’794 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal]
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal]
`
`
`’586 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal]
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 7:
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 1:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 14:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 16:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 559-1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 29703
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal]
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If Yes, infringement is: [ ] Literal]
`
`
`
`Claim 17:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`If you answered “Yes” for a claim in Section 1A, then continue to Section 1B and answer
`“Yes” or “No” for the same claims for which you found infringement. If you answered
`“No” for a claim in Section 1A, then do not answer the questions in Section 1B for those
`claims for which you did not find infringement. 1
`
`1B. Did Maxell prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s infringement, if
`any, was willful?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” as to each claim.
`
`
`’317 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’999 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’498 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Claim 17:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 3:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 3:
`
`Claim 13:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Apple objects to the inclusion of any question regarding willfulness in the verdict form.
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 559-1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 29704
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’493 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’438 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’193 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’991 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’306 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’794 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 5:
`
`Claim 6:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Claim 2:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 4:
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Claim 6:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 4:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 12:
`
`Claim 15:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 1:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 559-1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 29705
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 14:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): If you answered “Yes” to any claim in Section 1A, then
`continue to Section 2 and answer “Yes” or “No” for the claims you found were infringed.
`If you answered “No” to a claim in Section 1A, then do not answer the questions in Section
`2 as to those claims you found were not infringed.]
`
`Did Apple prove by clear and convincing evidence that the following listed claims of
`2.
`the following patents are invalid?
`
`If you find the claim invalid, answer “Yes,” [Maxell proposal (Apple opposes): (in favor of
`Apple)] otherwise, answer “No” [Maxell proposal (Apple opposes): (in favor of Maxell)]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’586 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 7:
`
`Claim 16:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 17:
`
`
`
`
`
`’317 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’999 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Claim 17:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 3:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’498 Patent:
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 559-1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 29706
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 3:
`
`Claim 13:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’493 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’438 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’193 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’991 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’306 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 5:
`
`Claim 6:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Claim 2:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 4:
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Claim 6:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 4:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 12:
`
`Claim 15:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 559-1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 29707
`
`’794 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Claim 14:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’586 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3A. Did Apple prove by clear and convincing evidence that the following claims of the
`’317 patent, the ’999 patent, and the ’498 patent are directed to [Maxell proposal (Apple
`opposes): a combination of] well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, from
`the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of July 12, 1999?
`
`Answer “Yes” [Maxell proposal (Apple opposes): (in favor of Apple)] or “No” [Maxell
`proposal (Apple opposes): (in favor of Maxell)] as to each claim.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 7:
`
`Claim 16:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 17:
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Claim 17:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’317 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’999 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 3:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’498 Patent:
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 559-1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 29708
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 3:
`
`Claim 13:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3B. Did Apple prove by clear and convincing evidence that the following claims of the
`’306 patent are directed to [Maxell proposal (Apple opposes): a combination of] well-
`understood, routine, and conventional technology, from the perspective of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art as of January 7, 2000?
`
`Answer “Yes” [Maxell proposal (Apple opposes): (in favor of Apple)] or “No” [Maxell
`proposal (Apple opposes): (in favor of Maxell)] as to each claim.
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 12:
`
`Claim 15:
`
`’306 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3C. Did Apple prove by clear and convincing evidence that the following claims of the
`’794 patent are directed to [Maxell proposal (Apple opposes): a combination of] well-
`understood, routine, and conventional technology, from the perspective of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art as of May 22, 2000?
`
`Answer “Yes” [Maxell proposal (Apple opposes): (in favor of Apple)] or “No” [Maxell
`proposal (Apple opposes): (in favor of Maxell)] as to each claim.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’794 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No”.
`
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Claim 14:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 559-1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 29709
`
`
`When did Maxell first give Apple actual notice
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): 4.
`that Maxell was accusing Apple of infringement of the following patents? Fill in a date
`beside each patent.
`
`’317 Patent:
`
`’999 Patent:
`
`’498 Patent:
`
`’493 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________
`
`_________________________
`
`_________________________
`
`_________________________ ]
`
`[Maxell proposal (Apple opposes): 5. What sum of money, if any, paid now in cash, do you
`find from a preponderance of the evidence would fairly and reasonably compensate Maxell
`for Apple’s infringement of any patent claim that is not invalid.
`
`Answer with the amount: $
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`]
`
`
`
`
`
`If you found Apple infringes a valid claim of an
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): 5A.
`asserted patent, what sum of money, if any, has Maxell proven by a preponderance of the
`evidence that fairly and reasonably compensates Maxell for Apple’s infringement? Answer
`with the amount only for each patent for which you found Apple infringes:
`
`Patent:
`
`’317 Patent:
`
`’999 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Amount
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`$ _________________________
`
`$ _________________________
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 559-1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 29710
`
`$ _________________________
`
`$ _________________________
`
`$ _________________________
`
`$ _________________________
`
`$ _________________________
`
`$ _________________________
`
`$ _________________________
`
`$ _________________________ ]
`
`’498 Patent:
`
`’493 Patent:
`
`’438 Patent:
`
`’193 Patent:
`
`’991 Patent:
`
`’306 Patent:
`
`’794 Patent:
`
`’586 Patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`If you awarded Maxell an amount for Question
`[Apple proposal (Maxell opposes): 5B.
`6A, is this amount based on:
`[ ] A lump sum for the life of each patent, or
`
`[ ] A running royalty for the life of each patent.]
`
`
`
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
