Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 1 of 29
`
`Exhibit A-3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 2 of 29
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Case No. 6:21-cv-569-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`U.S. District Judge Alan Albright
`
`[REQUESTED] PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc. and Defendant Google LLC submit the following
`
`[Requested] Preliminary Jury Instructions for the trial in this matter.
`
`Where the parties disagree about the inclusion of an instruction, or the appropriate language
`
`for that instruction, the parties indicate as much by labeling the instruction “contested”
`
`(underlined).
`
`Where the parties agree on the inclusion of a particular instruction and are generally in
`
`agreement on the wording of the instruction, but there remains some dispute over the exact
`
`language, Touchstream’s version of the instruction is in RED and Google’s version of the
`
`instruction is in BLUE.
`
`The parties understand that the Court’s current practice is to play the Federal Judicial
`
`Center’s video The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors to the entire jury venire prior to
`
`commencing voir dire. The parties do not object to this practice, and the below preliminary
`
`instructions presume the Court will play the video to the jury venire in this case.
`
`The parties reserve all rights to supplement, amend, or otherwise modify these proposed
`
`instructions as appropriate, including without limitation the right to revise their positions on the
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 3 of 29
`
`proposed instructions in response to future rulings by the Court or the evidence as it is admitted at
`
`trial. The parties submit these proposed jury instructions without waiver of their position that the
`
`opposing party has not presented sufficient evidence to submit some or all of its affirmative claims,
`
`damages theories, or affirmative defenses to the jury, and without waiver of arguments presented
`
`in motions in limine or in other pretrial proceedings.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 4 of 29
`
`Table of Contents
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 1: INSTRUCTIONS FOR BEGINNING OF TRIAL ................ 4
`PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS .............................................................................. 6
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 2: PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY ............... 6
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 3: WHAT IS A PATENT AND HOW ONE IS OBTAINED ... 8
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 4: PATENT LITIGATION ........................................................ 11
`CONTESTED:
`JURY
`INSTRUCTION NO. 5: THE PARTIES AND THEIR
`CONTENTIONS .................................................................................................................... 12
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 6: OUTLINE OF TRIAL.......................................................... 17
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 7: EVIDENCE .......................................................................... 19
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 8: WITNESSES ........................................................................ 21
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 9: DEPOSITION TESTIMONY .............................................. 23
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 10: EXPERT TESTIMONY .................................................... 24
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 11: STIPULATIONS OF FACT .............................................. 25
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 12: BIAS—CORPORATE PARTY INVOLVED ................... 26
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 13: BIAS—NO INFERENCE FROM FILING SUIT ............. 27
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 14: JUROR NOTEBOOKS ...................................................... 28
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 5 of 29
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 1: INSTRUCTIONS FOR BEGINNING OF TRIAL
`
`Members of the jury panel, if you have a cell phone, PDA, smart phone, iPhone, or any
`
`other wireless communication device with you, please take it out now and turn it off. Do not turn
`
`it to vibrate or silent; power it down. During jury selection, you must leave it off.
`
`There are certain rules you must follow while participating in this trial.
`
`First, you may not communicate with anyone about the case, including your fellow jurors,
`
`until it is time to deliberate. I understand you may want to tell your family, close friends and other
`
`people that you have been called for jury service so that you can explain when you are required to
`
`be in court. You should warn them not to ask you about this case, tell you anything they know or
`
`think they know about it, or discuss this case in your presence, until after I accept your verdict or
`
`excuse you as a juror.
`
`Similarly, you must not give any information to anyone by any means about this case. For
`
`example, do not talk face-to-face or use any electronic device or media, such as the telephone, a
`
`cell or smart phone, camera, recording device, PDA, computer, the Internet, any Internet service,
`
`any text or instant messaging service, any Internet chat room, blog, or website such as Facebook,
`
`YouTube, Snapchat, Instagram, or Twitter, or any other way to communicate to anyone, to send
`
`any information about this case until I accept your verdict or until you have been excused as a
`
`juror. This includes any information about the parties, witnesses, participants, claims, evidence, or
`
`anything else related to this case.
`
`Second, do not speak with anyone in or around the courthouse other than your fellow jurors
`
`or court personnel. Some of the people you encounter may have some connection to the case. If
`
`you were to speak with them, that could create an appearance or raise a suspicion of impropriety.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 6 of 29
`
`Third, do not do any research—on the Internet, in libraries, in books, newspapers,
`
`magazines, or using any other source or method. Do not make any investigation about this case on
`
`your own. Do not visit or view any place discussed in this case and do not use Internet programs
`
`or other devices to search for or view any place discussed in the testimony. Do not in any way
`
`research any information about this case, the law, or the people involved, including the parties, the
`
`witnesses, the lawyers, or the judge, until after you have been excused as jurors. If you happen to
`
`see or hear anything touching on this case in the media, turn away and report it to me as soon as
`
`possible.
`
`These rules protect the parties’ right to have this case decided only on evidence they know
`
`about, that has been presented here in court. If you do any research, investigation, or experiment
`
`that we do not know about, or gain any information through improper communications, then your
`
`verdict may be influenced by inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information that has not been
`
`tested by the trial process, which includes the oath to tell the truth and cross-examination. It could
`
`also be unfair to the parties’ right to know what information the jurors are relying on to decide the
`
`case. Each of the parties is entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, and you must conduct yourself
`
`so as to maintain the integrity of the trial process. If you decide the case based on information not
`
`presented in court, you will have denied the parties a fair trial in accordance with the rules of this
`
`country and you will have done an injustice. It is very important that you abide by these rules.
`
`Failure to follow these instructions could result in the case having to be retried.
`
`Source: Hafeman v. LG Elecs. Inc., 6:21-cv-00696-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (Prelim. Instruction No.
`1); Profectus Tech. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00101-ADA (W.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2021),
`Dkt. 170 (Prelim. Instruction No. 1); Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions 2020, with revisions
`through June 2020, § 1.1.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 7 of 29
`
`PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 2: PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY
`
`MEMBERS OF THE JURY:
`
`You have now been sworn as the jury to try this case.
`
`As the judge, I will decide all questions of law and procedure. As the jury, you alone are
`
`the judges of the facts. At the end of the trial, I will instruct you on the rules of law that you must
`
`apply to the facts as you find them.
`
`You may take notes during the trial. But do not allow your note-taking to distract you
`
`from listening to the testimony. Your notes are only an aid to your memory. If your memory
`
`should later be different from your notes, you should rely on your memory. Do not be unduly
`
`influenced by the notes of other jurors. A juror’s notes are not entitled to any greater weight than
`
`each juror’s individual recollection of the testimony and evidence.
`
`Until this trial is over, do not discuss this case with anyone. Do not permit anyone to
`
`discuss it in your presence. This includes everyone you know: your spouse, children, relatives,
`
`friends, coworkers, and anyone that you deal with during the day. During your jury service, you
`
`may not communicate any information about this case through any means or by any tools of
`
`technology. For example, do not talk face-to-face or use any electronic device or media, such as
`
`the telephone, cell phone, camera, recording device, PDA, computer, the Internet, any Internet
`
`service, any text or instant messaging service, any chat room, blog, or social media website such
`
`as Facebook, YouTube, SnapChat, Instagram, TikTik, or Twitter, or any other way to
`
`communicate to anyone any information about this case until I accept your verdict or excuse you
`
`as a juror.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 8 of 29
`
`Do not conduct any independent investigation of this case. You must make your decision
`
`on your verdict exclusively from what you see and hear within this courtroom. Do not try to
`
`obtain information from any other source. In particular, you may not use any electronic device
`
`or media, such as a telephone, cell phone, smartphone, or computer to research any issue touching
`
`on this case. Do not go online or read any newspaper account of this trial or listen to any radio
`
`or television newscast about it. Do not visit or view any place discussed in this case and do not
`
`use Internet programs or other devices to search for or to view any place discussed in the
`
`testimony. In sum, you may not research any information about this case, the law, or the people
`
`involved, including the parties, the witnesses, the lawyers, or the judge, until after you have been
`
`excused as jurors.
`
`Finally, keep an open mind during the entire trial. Do not decide the case until you have
`
`heard all of the evidence, my instructions, and the closing arguments.
`
`Sources: VLSI v. Intel, 19-cv-00977-ADA, Dkt. 686 (Nov. 15, 2022) (Prelim. Instruction No. 1);
`Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-511-ADA (W.D. Tex.); CloudofChange, LLC v.
`NCR Corp., No. 6:19-cv-513-ADA (W.D. Tex.); ESW Holdings, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-
`44-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 9 of 29
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 3: WHAT IS A PATENT AND HOW ONE IS OBTAINED
`
`This case involves a dispute relating to United States patents. Patents are granted by the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (sometimes called “the PTO”). A valid United States
`
`patent gives the patent holder the right for up to 20 years from the date the patent application was
`
`filed to prevent others from making, using, offering to sell, or selling the patented invention
`
`within the United States, or from importing it into the United States, without the patent holder’s
`
`permission. A violation of the patent holder’s rights is called infringement. The patent holder
`
`may try to enforce a patent against persons believed to be infringers by a lawsuit filed in federal
`
`court.
`
`The process of obtaining a patent is called patent prosecution. To obtain a patent, one must
`
`first file an application with the PTO. The PTO is an agency of the Federal Government and
`
`employs trained Examiners who review applications for patents. The application includes what is
`
`called a “specification,” which contains a written description of the claimed invention telling what
`
`the invention is, how it works, how to make it, and how to use it. The specification concludes with
`
`one or more numbered sentences. These are the patent “claims.” If a patent is eventually granted
`
`by the PTO, the claims define the boundaries of its protection and give notice to the public of those
`
`boundaries.
`
`After the applicant files the application, an Examiner reviews the application to determine
`
`whether or not the claims are patentable (appropriate for patent protection) and whether or not the
`
`specification adequately describes the invention claimed. In examining a patent application, the
`
`Examiner reviews certain information about the state of the technology at the time the application
`
`was filed. The PTO searches for and reviews information that is publicly available or that is
`
`submitted by the applicant. This information is called “prior art.” The Examiner reviews this prior
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 10 of 29
`
`art to determine whether or not the invention is truly an advance over the state of the art at the
`
`time. Prior art is defined by law, and I will give you, at a later time during these instructions,
`
`specific instructions as to what constitutes prior art. However, in general, prior art includes
`
`information that demonstrates the state of technology that existed before the claimed invention
`
`was made or before the application was filed. A patent lists the prior art that the Examiner
`
`considered; this list is called the “cited references.”
`
`After the prior art search and examination of the application, the Examiner informs the
`
`applicant in writing of what the Examiner has found and whether the Examiner considers any claim
`
`to be patentable and, thus, would be “allowed.” This writing from the Examiner is called an “Office
`
`Action.” If the Examiner rejects the claims, the applicant has an opportunity to respond to the
`
`Examiner to try to persuade the Examiner to allow the claims, and to change the claims or to submit
`
`new claims. This process may go back and forth for some time until the Examiner is satisfied that
`
`the application meets the requirements for a patent and the application issues as a patent, or that
`
`the application should be rejected and no patent should issue. Sometimes, patents are issued after
`
`appeals within the PTO or to a court. The papers generated during these communications between
`
`the Examiner and the applicant are called the “prosecution history.”
`
`The fact that the PTO grants a patent does not necessarily mean that any invention claimed
`
`in the patent, in fact, deserves the protection of a patent. For example, the PTO may not have had
`
`available to it all other prior art that will be presented to you. In addition, there is the possibility
`
`that mistakes were made or that information was overlooked. Examiners have a lot of work to do
`
`and no process is perfect. Also, unlike a court proceeding, patent prosecution takes place without
`
`input from those who are later alleged to infringe the patent. A person accused of infringement has
`
`the right to argue here in federal court that a claimed invention in the patent is invalid because it
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 11 of 29
`
`does not meet the requirements for a patent. It is your job to consider the evidence presented by
`
`the parties and determine independently whether or not Google has proven that one or more of the
`
`patents in this case are invalid. The PTO, or Patent Office, does not consider or decide issues of
`
`infringement with respect to a patent.
`
`Source: Hafeman v. LG Elecs. Inc., 6:21-cv-00696-ADA (Prelim. Instruction No. 3); Federal
`Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions § A.1 (May 2020).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 12 of 29
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 4: PATENT LITIGATION
`
`Someone is said to be infringing a claim of a patent when they, without permission from
`
`the patent owner, import, make, use, offer to sell, or sell the claimed invention, as defined by
`
`the claims of the patent, within the United States before the term of the patent expires. A patent
`
`owner who believes someone is infringing the exclusive rights of a patent may bring a lawsuit,
`
`just like this one, in an effort to stop the alleged infringing acts or to recover damages, generally
`
`meaning money paid by the infringer to the patent owner to compensate for harm caused by the
`
`infringement.
`
`The patent owner must prove infringement of at least one claim of the patent. The patent
`
`owner must also prove the amount of damages the patent owner is entitled to receive from the
`
`infringer as compensation for the infringing acts.
`
`It is ultimately up to you and exclusively up to you to decide based on the law the factual
`
`question of whether the patent owner, in this case the plaintiff, has proven infringement of any
`
`valid patent claim.
`
`A party accused of infringing a patent may deny infringement, and/or prove that the
`
`asserted claims of the patent are invalid. A patent when issued is presumed to be valid. In other
`
`words, it is presumed to have been properly granted by the PTO. But that presumption of
`
`validity can be overcome if clear and convincing evidence is presented in court that proves the
`
`patent is invalid.
`
`Source: VLSI v. Intel, 19-cv-00977-ADA, Dkt. 686 (Nov. 15, 2022) (Prelim. Instruction No. 4).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 13 of 29
`
`CONTESTED: JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 5: THE PARTIES AND THEIR
`CONTENTIONS
`
`To help you follow the evidence, I will now give you some information about the parties
`
`and their contentions in this case.
`
`This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States. The plaintiff is Touchstream Technologies, Inc., which I will call “Plaintiff” or
`
`“Touchstream.” The defendant is Google LLC, which I will call “Defendant” or “Google.”
`
`There are three patents assigned to Touchstream that are at issue in this case:
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,356,251
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,782,528
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,904,289
`
`The lawyers, witnesses, and I may refer to these patents, collectively, as the “Asserted
`
`Patents.” The lawyers, witnesses, and I may refer to each individual patent by its last three digits.
`
`For example, I may refer to U.S. Patent Number 8,356,251 as “the ‘251 Patent.” A copy of these
`
`patents will be given to you in the binders you will receive, along with these preliminary
`
`instructions and paper for taking notes during the trial.
`
`Touchstream contends that Google infringes the Asserted Patents through operation of
`
`Google devices that are “cast-enabled,” referred to as the “Accused Products,” and that Google’s
`
`infringement has been willful. The claims which Touchstream contends that Google infringes are:
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`Claims 1 and 8 of the ’251 Patent.
`
`Claims 1 and 14 of the ’528 Patent.
`
`Claims 1 and 2 of the ’289 Patent.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 14 of 29
`
`These claims may be collectively referred to as the “Touchstream Patent claims” or the “Asserted
`
`Claims.”
`
`To determine the question of infringement, you must compare the Accused Products with
`
`each Asserted Claim individually.
`
`A patent claim to a method is literally infringed only if each and every step in the claimed
`
`method exists in the Accused Products or was performed by an Accused Product as it is described
`
`in the claim language.
`
`A patent claim to a method is infringed under the doctrine of equivalents if the Accused
`
`Products practice something equivalent to a claim element. An equivalent of a claim element is a
`
`component or method step that is only insubstantially different form the claim element.
`
`Infringement is willful if Google knew of an Asserted Patent and intentionally infringed at
`
`least one asserted claim of an Asserted Patent. However, you may not find that Google’s
`
`infringement was willful merely because Google knew about the patent, without more.
`
`Google denies that it has infringed the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents. Google
`
`also argues that the Asserted Claims are invalid. I will instruct you in more detail at the end of trial
`
`as to the ways in which a patent may be invalid. In general, however, a patent claim is invalid if it
`
`is not new, which means the claim is “anticipated,” or is obvious in view of the state of the art at
`
`the relevant time, or if it lacks adequate written description in the patent specification.
`
`For a claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of the requirements of a claim must be
`
`present in a single piece of prior art. If a claim is not new, it is said to be anticipated.
`
`Another way that a claim may be invalid is that it may have been obvious. Even if it was
`
`not previously disclosed or described in full, a patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 15 of 29
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the patent’s field of technology before
`
`the filing date of the patent.
`
`Another way that a claim may be invalid is that it lacks written description support. The
`
`written description requirement asks whether the patent specification describes in full, clear, and
`
`exact terms the nature and extent of the claimed invention. If the specification fails to provide this
`
`description, the claim lacks written description support.
`
`I will give you detailed instructions on the law at the end of the case, and those instructions
`
`will control your deliberations and decision. Your job will be to decide: (1) whether Touchstream
`
`has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Google had infringed the Asserted Claims; (2)
`
`whether Google has proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the Asserted Claims is
`
`invalid; and (3) whether Touchstream has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any
`
`infringement of a valid claim was willful.
`
`If you decide that any of the Asserted Claims has been infringed and is not invalid, you
`
`will then need to decide monetary damages to be awarded to Touchstream to compensate it for the
`
`infringement. If you decide that any infringement was willful, that decision should not affect any
`
`damages award you give. I will take willfulness into account later.
`
`Source: Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions § A.2 (May 2020);
`AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions § 2 (2019); VLSI v. Intel, 19-cv-00977-ADA, Dkt. 686
`(Nov. 15, 2022) (Prelim. Instruction No. 5); Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury
`Instructions § A.4 (May 2020); Applied Computing III, Inc. v. Redfin Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00376-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.) (Preliminary Charge, No. 8); Profectus Technology LLC v. Google LLC, 6:20-
`cv-00101-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (Preliminary Jury Charge and Interrogatories, No. 3); ESW
`Holdings, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-44-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (Preliminary Jury Instructions);
`Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-511-ADA, Dkt. 247 at 30 (W.D. Tex. June 22,
`2021); see also PPS Data, LLC v. Jack Henry & Assocs., Inc., No. 2:18-cv-00007-JRG, Dkt. 175
`at 23:22-24:11 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2019); Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE USA Inc., No. 16-cv-00179-RWS,
`Dkt. 223 at 26 (E.D. Tex. June 29, 2018)); Innovation Scis. LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 4:18-
`cv-00474-ALM, Dkt. 845 at 22-23 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2020).
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 16 of 29
`
`Touchstream’s Objections to Google’s Proposed Instruction:
`
`Touchstream objects to inclusion of specifics on the law applicable to infringement,
`
`willfulness, and invalidity defenses in the preliminary instructions. The instructions are incomplete
`
`and confusing because they may create a premature understanding of the law that differs from the
`
`detailed instructions the jury will receive after the close of evidence. The practice of including
`
`these in the preliminary instructions is not always appropriate and is not appropriate in this case.
`
`This Court does not preliminarily instruct the jury on the law in every case. See, e.g., Applied
`
`Computing III, Inc. v. Redfin Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00376-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (Preliminary Charge,
`
`No. 8); Profectus Technology LLC v. Google LLC, 6:20-cv-00101-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (Preliminary
`
`Jury Charge and Interrogatories, No. 3).
`
`Google’s Position:
`
`This Court has given preliminary instructions that preview the parties claims in previous
`
`cases. For instance, in VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:19-cv-256-ADA, this Court
`
`preliminarily instructed the jury on both the patentee’s infringement contentions (e.g., literal
`
`infringement, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents), as well as the defendant’s
`
`defenses (e.g., noninfringement, anticipation). Dkt. 686 (Instruction No. 5) in VLSI, No. 6:19-
`
`cv-256-ADA. The AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions recommend adopting this practice as
`
`well, advising that the parties include brief descriptions of their contentions. AIPLA Model
`
`Patent Jury Instructions § 2 (2019). Given the number of issues in this case, to aid the jury,
`
`Google believes that including a short instruction previewing the theories, consistent with the
`
`Court’s practice such as in the VLSI case and the AIPLA guidance, would aid the jury. The
`
`summaries in Google’s proposal are drawn directly from agreed-upon language in the proposed
`
`final instructions.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 17 of 29
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 17 of 29
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 18 of 29
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 6: OUTLINE OF TRIAL
`
`The trial will begin shortly. First, each side may make an opening statement. An opening
`
`statement is not evidence. It is simply an opportunity for the lawyers to explain what they expect
`
`the evidence will show.
`
`There are two standards of proof that you will apply to the evidence, depending on the
`
`issue you are deciding. On some issues, you must decide whether certain facts have been proven
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence. For a fact to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence,
`
`you must find that the fact is more likely true than not, that is, the evidence in favor of that fact
`
`being true is sufficient to tip the scale, even if slightly, in its favor. On other issues that I will
`
`identify for you, you must use a higher standard and decide whether the fact has been proven by
`
`clear and convincing evidence, that is, that you have been left with a clear conviction that the fact
`
`has been proven.
`
`These standards are different from what you may have heard about in criminal proceedings
`
`where a fact must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. On a scale of these various standards of
`
`proof, as you move from preponderance of the evidence, where the proof need only be sufficient
`
`to tip the scale in favor of the party proving the fact, to 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 the two standards.
`
`After the opening statements, Touchstream will present its evidence in support of its
`
`contention that the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents have been infringed by Google and
`
`that the infringement has been willful. To prove infringement of any claim, Touchstream must
`
`persuade you that it is more likely than not that Google has infringed that claim. To persuade you
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 19 of 29
`
`that any infringement was willful, Touchstream must also prove that it is more likely than not that
`
`the infringement was willful.
`
`Google will then present its evidence that the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents are
`
`invalid. To prove invalidity of any claim, Google must persuade you by clear and convincing
`
`evidence that the claim is invalid. In addition to presenting its evidence of invalidity, Google will
`
`put on evidence responding to Touchstream’s evidence of infringement and willfulness.
`
`Touchstream may then put on evidence responding to Google’s evidence that the claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents are invalid, and to offer any additional evidence of infringement and
`
`willfulness. This is referred to as “rebuttal” evidence. Touchstream’s “rebuttal” evidence may
`
`respond to any evidence offered by Google.
`
`After the evidence has been presented, the attorneys will make closing arguments and I
`
`will give you final instructions on the law that applies to the case. These closing arguments by the
`
`attorneys are not evidence. After the closing arguments and instructions, you will then decide the
`
`case.
`
`Source: Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions § A.5 (May 2020).
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 20 of 29
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 7: EVIDENCE
`
`The evidence you will hear consists of the testimony of the witnesses, the documents, and
`
`other exhibits admitted into evidence, the stipulations to which the lawyers agreed, and any fair
`
`inferences and reasonable conclusions you can draw from the facts and circumstances that have
`
`been proven. Nothing else is evidence.
`
`Generally speaking, there are two types of evidence. One is direct evidence, such as
`
`testimony of an eyewitness. The other is indirect or circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial
`
`evidence is evidence that proves a fact from which you can logically conclude another fact exists.
`
`As a general rule, the law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, but
`
`simply requires that you determine the facts from all the evidence that you will hear in this case,
`
`whether direct, circumstantial, or any combination.
`
`In judging the facts, you must consider all the evidence, both direct and circumstantial.
`
`That does not mean you have to believe all of the evidence. It is entirely up to you to give the
`
`evidence you will receive in this case whatever weight you individually believe it deserves. It will
`
`be up to you to decide which witnesses to believe, which witnesses not to believe, the weight you
`
`give any testimony you hear, and how much of any witness’s testimony you choose to accept or
`
`reject.
`
`Objections to questions are not evidence. The attorneys in this case may object if they think
`
`that documents or testimony offered into evidence are improper under the rules of evidence. My
`
`legal rulings as to those objections are not evidence. My comments and questions are not evidence.
`
`If I sustain an objection, then just pretend the question was never asked. If there is an answer given,
`
`ignore it. If I overrule the objection, act like the objection was never made. If I give you instructions
`
`that some item of evidence is to be received for a limited purpose, you must follow my instruction.
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 21 of 29
`
`If I give any limiting instruction during trial, you must follow it. Any testimony I tell you to exclude
`
`or disregard is not evidence and may not be considered.
`
`You must not conduct any independent research or investigation. You must make your
`
`decision based only on the evidence here, and nothing else.
`
`Source: Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-511-ADA, Dkt. 247 at 5-6 (W.D. Tex.
`June 22, 2021); Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions 2020, with revisions through June 2020,
`§ 3.3; see also MV3 Partners, LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-00308-ADA, Dkt. 379 at 3-4 (W.D.
`Tex. Oct. 14, 2020); ESW Holdings, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00044-ADA, Dkt. 172 at 1-2
`(W.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2021); CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corp., No. 6-19-cv-513-ADA, Dkt. 150
`at 4 (W.D. Tex. May 19, 2021); Densys Ltd. v. 3Shape Trios A/S, No. 6:19-cv-00680-ADA, Dkt.
`156 (Apr. 4, 2022); MV3 Partners, LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:18-cv00308-ADA (W.D. Tex.), 2020-
`10-05 Trial Tr. (D.I. 389) 40:16-42:17.
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-3 Filed 07/14/23 Page 22 of 29
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 8: WITNESSES
`
`You alone are t