throbber
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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket