Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 1 of 46 PageID #: 32425
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit B
`
`Jury Instructions
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 2 of 46 PageID #: 32426
`
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`1.
`
`Introduction1
`
`MEMBERS OF THE JURY:
`
`It is my duty and responsibility to instruct you on the law you are to apply in this case.
`
`The law contained in these instructions is the only law you may follow. It is your duty to follow
`
`what I instruct you the law is, regardless of any opinion that you might have as to what the law
`
`ought to be.
`
`If I have given you the impression during the trial that I favor either party, you must
`
`disregard that impression. If I have given you the impression during the trial that I have an
`
`opinion about the facts of this case, you must disregard that impression. You are the sole judges
`
`of the facts of this case. Other than my instructions to you on the law, you should disregard
`
`anything I may have said or done during the trial in arriving at your verdict.
`
`You should consider all of the instructions about the law as a whole and regard each
`
`instruction in light of the others, without isolating a particular statement or paragraph.
`
`
`1 Authority: Section 3.1, Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases) (rev. 6/2020) (verbatim).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 3 of 46 PageID #: 32427
`
`
`The testimony of the witnesses and other exhibits introduced by the parties constitute the
`
`evidence. The statements of counsel are not evidence; they are only arguments. It is important
`
`for you to distinguish between the arguments of counsel and the evidence on which those
`
`arguments rest. What the lawyers say or do is not evidence. You may, however, consider their
`
`arguments in light of the evidence that has been admitted and determine whether the evidence
`
`admitted in this trial supports the arguments. You must determine the facts from all the testimony
`
`that you have heard and the other evidence submitted. You are the judges of the facts, but in
`
`finding those facts, you must apply the law as I instruct you.
`
`You are required by law to decide the case in a fair, impartial, and unbiased manner,
`
`based entirely on the law and on the evidence presented to you in the courtroom. You may not be
`
`influenced by passion, prejudice, or sympathy you might have for the plaintiff or the defendant
`
`in arriving at your verdict.
`
`1.1
`
`Considering Witness Testimony2
`
`You alone are to determine the questions of credibility or truthfulness of the witnesses. In
`
`weighing the testimony of the witnesses, you may consider the witness’s manner and demeanor,
`
`any feelings or interest in the case, or any prejudice or bias about the case, that he or she may
`
`have, and the consistency or inconsistency of his or her testimony considered in the light of the
`
`circumstances. Has the witness been contradicted by other credible evidence? Has he or she
`
`made statements at other times and places contrary to those made here? You must give the
`
`testimony of each witness the credibility that you think it deserves.
`
`
`2 Section 3.4, Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases) (rev. 6/2020) (verbatim); Proposed by Apple in
`Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:12-CV-855-RWS, Joint Submission of Jury Materials, Docket No. 855, Ex. B
`at 1-6 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 9, 2020).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 4 of 46 PageID #: 32428
`
`
`Even though a witness may be a party to the action and therefore interested in its
`
`outcome, the testimony may be accepted if it is not contradicted by direct evidence or by any
`
`inference that may be drawn from the evidence, if you believe the testimony.
`
`You are not to decide this case by counting the number of witnesses who have testified
`
`on the opposing sides. Witness testimony is weighed; witnesses are not counted. The test is not
`
`the relative number of witnesses, but the relative convincing force of the evidence. The
`
`testimony of a single witness is sufficient to prove any fact, even if a greater number of witnesses
`
`testified to the contrary, if after considering all of the other evidence, you believe that witness.
`
`1.2
`
`No Inference from Filing Suit3
`
`The fact that a plaintiff brought a lawsuit and is in court seeking damages creates no
`
`inference that the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment. Anyone may make a claim and file a lawsuit.
`
`The act of making a claim in a lawsuit, by itself, does not in any way tend to establish that claim
`
`and is not evidence.
`
`1.3
`
`Expert Witnesses4
`
`When knowledge of a technical subject matter may be helpful to the jury, a person who
`
`has special training or experience in that technical field is permitted to state his or her opinion on
`
`those technical matters. [Maxell Proposal: He or she is called an expert witness.] [Apple
`
`Proposal: delete]5 However, you are not required to accept that opinion. As with any other
`
`witness, it is up to you to decide whether the witness’s testimony is believable or not, whether it
`
`
`3Authority: Section 3.6, Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases) (rev. 6/2020) (“person” replaced with
`“plaintiff”).
`4 Maxell Authority: Final Jury Instructions, Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE (USA) Inc. Case No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS, D.I. 223
`(E.D. Tex., June 29, 2018).
`5 Apple Authority: Section 3.5, Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases) (rev. 6/2020) (verbatim);
`Proposed by Apple in Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:12-CV-855-RWS, Joint Submission of Jury Materials,
`Docket No. 883, Ex. B at 1-6 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 9, 2020). .
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 5 of 46 PageID #: 32429
`
`
`is supported by the evidence, and whether to rely upon it. In deciding whether to accept or rely
`
`upon the opinion of an expert witness, you may consider any bias of the witness.
`
`1.4
`
`Deposition Testimony6
`
`Certain testimony has been presented to you through a deposition. A deposition is the
`
`sworn, recorded answers to questions a witness was asked in advance of the trial. Under some
`
`circumstances, if a witness cannot be present to testify from the witness stand, that witness’s
`
`testimony may be presented, under oath, in the form of a deposition. Sometime before this trial,
`
`attorneys representing the parties in this case questioned this witness under oath. A court reporter
`
`was present and recorded the testimony. The questions and answers have been read and/or shown
`
`to you during this trial. This deposition testimony is entitled to the same consideration and is to
`
`be judged by you as to credibility and weighed and otherwise considered by you in the same way
`
`as if the witness had been present and had testified from the witness stand in court.
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Contentions
`
`Maxell Proposal:
`
`To help you follow the evidence, I will now give you a summary of the positions of the
`
`parties. The parties in this case are Maxell, Ltd. and Apple Inc. The case involves six United
`
`States Patents, which are referred to as “Asserted Patents,” and certain claims of those patents,
`
`which are referred to as “Asserted Claims.”
`
`Maxell contends that Apple infringes the following claims by making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States certain Apple products. Specifically,
`
`Maxell contends that Apple:
`
`
`6 Authority: Section 2.13, Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases) (rev. 6/2020); Proposed by Apple in
`Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:12-CV-855-RWS, Joint Submission of Jury Materials, Docket No. 883, Ex. B
`at 1-4 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 9, 2020). .
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 6 of 46 PageID #: 32430
`
`
`a.
`
`Infringes claims 1 and 17 of the ’317 Patent, literally and under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents;
`
`b.
`
`Infringes claim 3 of the ’999 Patent, literally and under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents;
`
`Infringes claim 3 of the ’498 Patent, literally and under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents;
`
`Literally infringes claim 5 of the ’493 Patent;
`
`Infringes claim 6 of the ’493 Patent, literally and under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents;
`
`Literally infringes claims 1 and 4 of the ’438 Patent;
`
`Infringes claims 1 and 14 of the ’794 Patent, literally and under the doctrine of
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`equivalents.
`
`Maxell also contends that Apple has committed infringement willfully.7
`
`Maxell is seeking damages for the alleged infringement of Apple.
`
`In response to Maxell’s contentions, Apple contends that it does not infringe any of the
`
`Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents. Apple also contends that, if it is found to infringe any
`
`Asserted Claim, no such infringement has been willful. Apple also contends that the Asserted
`
`Claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid. Apple also contends Maxell is not entitled to damages
`
`for any infringement.
`
`Your job is to decide whether Apple has infringed the Asserted Claims, and whether any
`
`of the Asserted Claims are invalid. If you decide that any Asserted Claim has been infringed and
`
`
`7 Apple objects to all references to willful infringement in these instructions and to the inclusion of willful
`infringement as an issue for trial.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 7 of 46 PageID #: 32431
`
`
`is not invalid, you will then need to decide the amount of money damages to be awarded to
`
`Maxell to compensate it for the infringement.8
`
`You will also need to make a finding as to whether the infringement was willful. If you
`
`decide that any infringement was willful, that decision should not affect any damages award you
`
`make. I will take willfulness into account later.9
`
`Apple Proposal:10
`
`I will first give you a summary of each side’s contentions in this case. I will then tell you
`
`what each side must prove to win on these issues.
`
`Maxell seeks damages from Apple for allegedly infringing certain claims of six Maxell
`
`patents. I will refer to them as the asserted patents. Maxell contends that Apple has made, used,
`
`sold, or offered for sale in the United States certain iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, and iPod
`
`Touches that infringe at least one of the following asserted patent claims:
`
` Claims 1 and 17 of the ’317 Patent;
`
` Claim 3 of the ’999 Patent;
`
` Claim 3 of the ’498 Patent;
`
` Claims 5 and 6 of the ’493 Patent;
`
` Claims 1 and 4 of the ’438 Patent; and
`
` Claims 1 and 14 of the ’794 Patent.
`
`In response to Maxell’s infringement contentions, Apple contends that Apple did not
`
`make, use, sell, or offer for sale products that infringe any asserted claim of Maxell’s patents.
`
`
`8 Authority: Section B.1, The Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions (rev. 2020).
`9 Id.
`10 Authority: Sections A.2, B.1, The Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions (rev. 2020)
`(modified to replace “any” with “what, if any,”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 8 of 46 PageID #: 32432
`
`
`Apple also contends that the asserted claims are invalid. Because Apple contends that none of
`
`the features infringe, Apple further contends that Maxell is not entitled to damages.
`
`Your job is to decide whether Apple has infringed the asserted claims of the asserted
`
`patents and whether any of the asserted claims of the asserted patents are invalid. If you decide
`
`that any claim of the asserted patents has been infringed and is not invalid, you will then need to
`
`decide what, if any, money damages to be awarded to Maxell to compensate it for the
`
`infringement.
`
`[Maxell Proposal:11 (Apple Opposes)12
`
`2.1
`
`Representative Products
`
`For purposes of this case, the parties agree that certain products are representative of
`
`other products. That means that proof of infringement or non-infringement of a representative
`
`product shall be treated as proof for the other products that it represents. Specifically, for the
`
`purposes of infringement or non-infringement, the following products are representative, and
`
`proof of infringement or non-infringement about the following products is proof for the products
`
`they each represent:
`
`
`11Maxell Authority: Final Jury Instruction 2.1, Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE (USA) Inc. Case No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS, D.I.
`223 (E.D. Tex., June 29, 2018). Under Apple’s position, Maxell would prove infringement of one product and
`request damages on a larger group of products as a result, with no explanation of how the infringement of one
`product relates to the other products for which damages are sought. The representative products stipulation is
`essential to the jury’s understanding of how an infringement finding for one product is imputed to the other accused
`products and how infringement of the representative product impacts damages of the represented products. The
`instruction is limited to this case, notes that the representative products are limited to this case, and does not address
`burden of proof—Maxell’s or Apple’s—for any issue. Contrary to Apple’s objection failing to instruct the jury on
`the parties’ agreement will lead to confusion and prevent the jury from being able to assess damages on all the
`accused products.
`12 Apple objects to Maxell’s proposed instruction on representative products. The parties entered into a joint
`stipulation on representative products to streamline the case and simplify its presentation to the jury. Repeating the
`entire stipulation to the jury defeats its intended purpose and introduces unnecessarily detailed and confusing
`information that will not aid the jury in determining the issues of liability or damages in this case. Apple also objects
`in that the language of Maxell’s proposed instruction in that it suggests that Apple has a burden of proof on non-
`infringement, and it is not an accurate representation of the parties’ agreement in its Joint Stipulation on
`representative products for trial.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 9 of 46 PageID #: 32433
`
`
`a. The iPhone 11 executing iOS 13 (A2111) is representative of all iPhones accused of
`
`infringing the ’317 Patent;
`
`b. The iPhone 11 executing iOS 13 (A2111) is representative of all iPhones accused of
`
`infringing the ’999 Patent;
`
`c. The iPhone 11 executing iOS 13 (A2111) is representative of all iPhones accused of
`
`infringing the ’498 Patent;
`
`d. The iPhone 8 executing iOS 11 (A1863/A1905) is representative of all ’493 Accused
`
`Products.
`
`e. The iPhone 8 executing iOS 11 (A1863/A1905) is representative of all iPhones accused
`
`of infringing the ’794 Patent, except that the iPhone 11 executing iOS 13 (A2111) is
`
`representative of the iPhones accused infringing the ’794 Patent by virtue of
`
`implementing the accused functionality of Express Transit Mode.
`
`f. The iPad 6th Generation executing iOS 11 (A1893/A1954) and the iPad 7th Generation
`
`executing iOS 13 (A2200/A2198/A2197) are equivalent for purposes of establishing
`
`infringement or non-infringement of the ’794 patent, and are both representative of all
`
`iPads and iPod Touches accused of infringing the ’794 Patent.
`
`g. The Apple Watch Series 5 LTE GPS executing watchOS 6 (A2094/A2095) is
`
`representative of all Apple Watches accused of infringing the ’794 Patent.
`
`h. The iPhone 11 executing iOS 13 (A2111) used in conjunction with any iOS device (e.g.,
`
`iPad Mini executing iOS 8 (A1432) or iPhone 8 (A1863/A1905) or iPod Touch 6th
`
`generation (A1574)) is representative of all products accused of infringing the ’438
`
`Patent by implementing AirDrop.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 10 of 46 PageID #: 32434
`
`
`i. The iPhone 11 executing iOS 13 (A2111) used in conjunction with Apple Watch Series 5
`
`executing watchOS 6 (A2094) is representative of all products accused of infringing the
`
`’438 Patent by pairing with an Apple Watch.
`
`j. The Apple Watch Series 5 executing watchOS 6 (A2094) used in conjunction with
`
`iPhone 11 executing iOS 13 (A2111) is representative of all products accused of
`
`infringing the ’438 Patent by pairing with an Apple iPhone.
`
`k. A representative version of an operations system (e.g., iOS 13, watchOS 6) includes any
`
`of the subversions thereof (e.g., iOS 13.1, 13.2, watchOS 6.1, 6.2).
`
`3.
`
`Burdens of Proof13
`
`Facts must be proved by a required standard of evidence known as the burden of proof.
`
`[Apple Proposal: The burden of proof in this case is on Maxell for some issues, and it is on
`
`Apple for other issues.]14 [Maxell Proposal: You’ve heard about it, I’m sure, from television and
`
`probably in criminal cases with reference to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That does not
`
`apply in a civil case like this. In a patent case like this one, there] [Apple proposal: There] are
`
`two burdens of proof that you will apply: The preponderance of the evidence standard and the
`
`clear and convincing evidence standard.15
`
`Maxell has the burden of proving patent infringement, [Apple proposal: actual notice]
`
`[Maxell proposal: willfulness], and damages by a preponderance of the evidence. A
`
`preponderance of the evidence means evidence that persuades you that a claim is more likely
`
`true than not true. Sometimes this is talked about as being the greater weight and degree of
`
`credible testimony.
`
`
`13 Maxell Authority: Final Jury Instructions, Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE (USA) Inc. Case No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS, D.I.
`223 (E.D. Tex., June 29, 2018).
`14 Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions (May 2020) at A.5, §§ 3.1, 4.1 (modified).
`15 Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions (May 2020) at A.5, §§ 3.1, 4.1 (modified).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 11 of 46 PageID #: 32435
`
`
`Apple has the burden of proving patent invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`Clear and convincing evidence means evidence that produces in your mind a firm belief or
`
`conviction that the truth of the party’s factual contentions is highly probable. Although proof to
`
`an absolute certainty is not required, the clear and convincing evidence standard requires a
`
`greater degree of persuasion than is necessary for the preponderance of the evidence standard. If
`
`the proof establishes in your mind a firm belief [Maxell proposal (Apple opposes): or conviction]
`
`in the truth of the matter, then the clear and convincing evidence standard has been met.
`
`These standards are different from what you may have learned about in criminal
`
`proceedings where a fact is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. On a scale of the various
`
`standards of proof, as you move from the preponderance of the evidence, where the proof need
`
`only be 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
`
`may think of clear and convincing evidence as being between those two standards.
`
`In determining whether any fact has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence or
`
`by clear and convincing evidence, you may, unless otherwise instructed, consider the
`
`stipulations, the testimony of all the witnesses, regardless of who called them, and all the exhibits
`
`received into evidence during the trial, regardless of who may have produced them.
`
`4.
`
`Claims of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`Maxell Proposal:16
`
`Before you can decide many of the issues in this case, you will need to understand the
`
`role of patent “claims.” The claims of a patent are the numbered sentences at the end of the
`
`
`16 Authority: Final Jury Instructions, Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE (USA) Inc. Case No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS, D.I. 223 (E.D.
`Tex., June 29, 2018); Section B.2(2.1), The Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions (rev.
`2020).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 12 of 46 PageID #: 32436
`
`
`patent. The claims describe the invention made by the inventor and describe what the patent
`
`owner owns and what the patent owner may prevent others from doing. Claims may describe
`
`products, methods and apparatus such as machines or chemical compounds, or processes for
`
`making or using a product.
`
`The claims are important because it is the words of the claims themselves 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
`
`breadth of the patent’s coverage. Each claim is effectively treated as if it were a separate patent,
`
`and each claim may cover more or less than another claim. Therefore, what a patent covers
`
`depends upon what each of its claims cover.
`
`Apple Proposal:17
`
`Before you can decide many of the issues in this case, you will need to understand the
`
`role of patent “claims.” The 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 are called the specification, and provide a
`
`description and/or examples of the invention and provide a context for the claims.
`
`But it is the claims that define the breadth of the patent’s coverage. Each claim is
`
`effectively treated as if it were a separate patent. And each claim may cover more or less than
`
`another claim. Therefore, what a patent covers depends in turn on what each of its claims covers.
`
`Maxell and Apple Proposal:
`
`
`17 Apple Authority: Final Jury Instructions, Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:12-CV-855-RWS, Trial Tr. Feb 2,
`2016 at 149-150 (E.D. Tex. Feb 1, 2016); Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions (May
`2020) § B.2 (2.1).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 13 of 46 PageID #: 32437
`
`
`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 law
`
`says that it’s my role to define the terms of the claims, and it’s your role to apply these
`
`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 you those definitions in Appendix A.
`
`You must accept the 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 deciding, including infringement
`
`and invalidity.
`
`For any words in a claim for which you have not been provided with a definition, you
`
`should apply the ordinary meaning of those terms in the field of the patent, as understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. You should not take my definition of the language of the claims as an
`
`indication that I have a view regarding how you should decide the issues that you are being
`
`asked to decide, such as infringement and invalidity.
`
`4.1 How a Patent Claim Defines What It Covers18
`
`I will now explain how a patent claim defines what it covers. A claim sets forth, in words,
`
`a set of requirements. Each claim sets forth its requirements in a single sentence. If a device or
`
`system satisfies each of these requirements, then it is covered by the claim. In patent law, the
`
`requirements of a claim are often referred to as “claim elements” or “claim limitations.”
`
`
`18 Authority: Final Jury Instructions, Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE (USA) Inc. Case No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS, D.I. 223 (E.D.
`Tex., June 29, 2018); Section B.2(2.1), The Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions (rev.
`2020); Proposed by Apple in Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:12-CV-855-RWS, Joint Submission of Jury
`Materials, Docket No. 883, Ex. B at 4-1 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 9, 2020). ; Final Jury Instructions, Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 6:12-CV-855-RWS, Trial Tr. Feb 2, 2016 at 150-51 (E.D. Tex. Feb 1, 2016).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 14 of 46 PageID #: 32438
`
`
`When a thing (such as a feature, product, process, or system) meets all of the
`
`requirements of a claim, the claim is said to “cover” that thing, and that thing is said to “fall”
`
`within the scope of that claim. In other words, a claim covers a feature, product, process, or
`
`system where each of the claim elements or limitations is present in that feature, product,
`
`process, or system. Conversely, if the feature, product, process, or system meets only some, but
`
`not all, of the claim elements or limitations, then that feature, product, process, or system is not
`
`covered by the claim.
`
`By understanding the meaning of the words in a claim and by understanding that the
`
`words in a claim set forth the requirements that a product must meet in order to be covered by
`
`that claim, you will be able to understand the scope of coverage for each claim. Once you
`
`understand what each claim covers, then you are prepared to decide the issues that you will be
`
`asked to decide, such as infringement and invalidity.
`
`4.2
`
`Independent and Dependent Claims19
`
`This case involves two types of patent claims: independent claims and dependent claims.
`
`An “independent claim” sets forth all of the requirements that must be met in order to be
`
`covered by that claim. In this case, for example, claim 1 of the ’317 Patent is an independent
`
`claim.
`
`Other claims in the case are “dependent claims.” A dependent claim does not itself recite
`
`all of the requirements of the claim but refers to another claim for some of its requirements. In
`
`this case, for example, claim 17 of the ’317 Patent depends from claim 15. In this way the claim
`
`“depends” on another claim. The dependent claim incorporates all of the requirements of the
`
`
`19 Authority: Section B.2(2.1a), The Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions (rev. 2020);
`Final Jury Instructions, Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:12-CV-855-RWS, Trial Tr. Feb 2, 2016 at 151-52
`(E.D. Tex. Feb 1, 2016).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 15 of 46 PageID #: 32439
`
`
`claims to which it refers. The dependent claim then adds its own additional requirements. To
`
`determine what a dependent claim covers, it is necessary to look at both the dependent claim and
`
`any other claims to which it refers. A feature or product that meets all of the requirements of
`
`both the dependent claim and the claims to which it refers is covered by that dependent claim.
`
`4.3
`
`Claim Interpretation20
`
`I will now explain to you the meaning of some of the words of the claims in this case. In
`
`doing so, I will explain some of the requirements of the claims. As I have previously instructed
`
`you, you must accept my definition of these words in the claims as correct. Those definitions are
`
`provided for you in Appendix A. For any words in the claim for which I have not provided you
`
`with a definition, you should apply their common meaning. You should not take my definition of
`
`the language of the claims as an indication that I have a view regarding how you should decide
`
`the issues that you are being asked to decide, such as infringement and validity. These issues are
`
`yours to decide.
`
`For some constructions I refer to the structure required by the term as being described in
`
`a portion of the patent identified by column and line number, or in a Figure of the patent. Those
`
`are what we call means plus function terms. I will explain those now.
`
`4.4
`
`“Functional Claiming” Claims21
`
`Asserted Claims 1 and 17 of the ’317 Patent, asserted claim 3 of the ’999 Patent, asserted
`
`claim 3 of the ’498 Patent, and asserted claims 1 and 14 of the ’794 Patent have limitations
`
`expressed using functional language. For example, these claims have phrases such as “device
`
`
`20 Authority: Final Jury Instructions, Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE (USA) Inc. Case No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS, D.I. 223 (E.D.
`Tex., June 29, 2018).
`21 Authority: Claim Construction Memorandum and Order, Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc. Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-
`RWS, D.I. 235 (E.D. Tex., March 18, 2020; Section B.2(2.3a), The Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent
`Jury Instructions (rev. 2020).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 16 of 46 PageID #: 32440
`
`
`for” performing a function or “function device.” Such functional language phrases have a special
`
`meaning in patent law. It is called a “means-plus-function” requirement. These limitations do not
`
`cover all of the structures that could perform the functions set forth in the claim. Instead, each
`
`such limitation covers a structure or a set of structures that performs that function and that is
`
`either identical or “equivalent” to the structure(s) described in the patent for performing that
`
`function. The issue of whether two structures are identical or equivalent is for you to decide. I
`
`will explain to you later how to determine whether two structures or two sets of structures are
`
`“equivalent” to one another.
`
`For purposes of this case, I have identified for you the structures described in the ’317,
`
`’999, ’498, and ’794 patents that perform the various functions recited in the asserted claims.
`
`These are listed in Appendix A along with the other definitions for the different claim terms.
`
`When I read you my definitions for certain claim terms a few moments ago, I identified these
`
`structures. You should apply my definitions of the functions and the structures described in the in
`
`the ’317, ’999, ’498, and ’794 patents for performing them as you would apply my definition of
`
`any other claim term.
`
`5.
`
`Infringement22
`
`Any person or business entity who makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, or imports into the
`
`United States a product that is covered by at least one claim of a patent infringes the patent. A
`
`patent owner has the right to stop others from making, using, selling and offering for sale, and
`
`importing into the United States the invention covered by the patent claims during the life of the
`
`patent.
`
`
`22 Authority: Final Jury Instructions, Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE (USA) Inc. Case No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS, D.I. 223 (E.D.
`Tex., June 29, 2018).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 638-2 Filed 03/01/21 Page 17 of 46 PageID #: 32441
`
`
`5.1
`
`Direct Infringement by “Literal Infringement”23
`
`There are two types of “direct infringement”: (1) “literal infringement” and (2)
`
`“infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.”
`
`In order to prove direct infringement by literal infringement, Maxell must prove that
`
`Apple made, used, sold, offered for sale within, or imported into the United States an accused
`
`product that meets all of the requirements of an asserted claim and did so without the permission
`
`of Maxell during the time the asserted patent was in force. You must compare the accused
`
`product with each and every one of the requirements of a claim to determine whether all of the
`
`requirements of that claim are met.
`
`You must determine, separately for each asserted claim, whether or not there is
`
`infringement. There is one exception to this rule. If you find that a claim on which other claims
`
`depend is not infringed, there cannot be infringement of any dependent claim that refers directly
`
`or indirectly to that independent claim. On the other hand, if you find that an independent claim
`
`has been