Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-6 Filed 07/14/23 Page 1 of 9
`
`Exhibit C-1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-6 Filed 07/14/23 Page 2 of 9
`
`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
`
`TOUCHSTREAM’S FIRST AMENDED PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORM
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-6 Filed 07/14/23 Page 3 of 9
`
`JURY VERDICT FORM
`
`When answering the following questions and filling out this Verdict Form, please follow
`
`the directions provided throughout the form. Your answer to each question must be unanimous.
`
`Some of the questions contain legal terms that are defined and explained in detail in the Jury
`
`Instructions. Please refer to the Jury Instructions if you are unsure about the meaning or usage of
`
`any legal term that appears in the questions below.
`
`As used herein, “Touchstream” means Touchstream Technologies Inc., and “Google”
`
`means Google LLC. As used herein:
`
`“289 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 8,904,289.
`
`“251 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 8,356,251.
`
`“528 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 8,782,528.
`
`As used herein, the “Asserted Patents” collectively refers to the 289 Patent, 251 Patent, and 528
`
`Patent.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-6 Filed 07/14/23 Page 4 of 9
`
`We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them
`as our verdict in this case.
`
`I.
`
`INFRINGEMENT.
`
`Directions: Question No. 1
`
`In answering the Questions below, please check “Yes” or “No” for each listed asserted
`claim in the space provided.
`
`Question No. 1: Has Touchstream proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`Google has
`
`infringed
`
`the
`
`following asserted claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents?
`
`“Yes” is in favor of Touchstream, and “No” is in favor of Google.
`
`289 Patent
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes_____ / No_____
`
`Claim 2:
`
`Yes_____ / No_____
`
`251 Patent
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes_____ / No_____
`
`Claim 8:
`
`Yes_____ / No_____
`
`528 Patent
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes_____ / No_____
`
`Claim 14:
`
`Yes_____ / No_____
`
`Please proceed directly to Question No. 2.
`
`24096" = "1" "4875-7849-4278 v6" ""
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-6 Filed 07/14/23 Page 5 of 9
`
`II.
`
`VALIDITY
`
`Directions: Question No. 2
`
`In answering the Questions below, please check “Yes” or “No” for each listed asserted
`claim in the space provided.
`
`Question No. 2: Has Google proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following
`
`asserted
`
`claims
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Asserted
`
`Patents
`
`are
`
`invalid?
`
`“Yes” is in favor of Google, and “No” is in favor of Touchstream.
`
`289 Patent
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes_____ / No_____
`
`Claim 2:
`
`Yes_____ / No_____
`
`251 Patent
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes_____ / No_____
`
`Claim 8:
`
`Yes_____ / No_____
`
`528 Patent
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes_____ / No_____
`
`Claim 14:
`
`Yes_____ / No_____
`
`Please proceed directly to Question No. 3.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-6 Filed 07/14/23 Page 6 of 9
`
`III.
`
`DAMAGES AND WILLFULNESS
`
`Question No. 3: Answer the following if there is at least one claim of the Asserted
`
`Patents for which you answered “Yes” in Question 1, and “No” in Question 2. Otherwise, do
`
`not answer.
`
`What is the total amount of damages you find for Google’s infringement of the Asserted
`
`Patent(s)?
`
`$________________________
`
`Question No. 4: Answer Question 4 if there is at least one claim of the Asserted Patents
`
`for which you answered “Yes” in Question 1. Otherwise, do not answer. Do you find that
`
`Touchstream has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Google’s infringement was
`
`willful?
`
`Yes_____ / No_____
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-6 Filed 07/14/23 Page 7 of 9
`
`You have now reached the end of the verdict form and should review it to ensure it
`
`accurately reflects your unanimous determinations. After you are satisfied that your unanimous
`
`answers are correctly reflected above, your Jury Foreperson should then sign and date this Verdict
`
`Form in the spaces below. Once that is done, notify the Court Security Officer that you have
`
`reached a verdict. The Jury Foreperson should retain possession of the verdict form and bring it
`
`when the jury is brought back into the courtroom.
`
`I certify that the jury unanimously concurs in every element of the above verdict.
`
`Signed this _____ day of ____________, 2023.
`
`JURY FOREPERSON
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-6 Filed 07/14/23 Page 8 of 9
`
`Google’s Objections to Touchstream’s First Amended Proposed Jury Verdict Form:
`
`Google objects to Touchstream’s proposed Question No. 2 that presents Google’s
`
`invalidity case in the form of a single, omnibus question that does not require the jury to specify
`
`the basis for its findings of validity. This will risk jury confusion given that Google is presenting
`
`invalidity under anticipation, obviousness, and written description in this case. In addition, by
`
`failing to ask the jury to specify the type of invalidity it has found, a reviewing Court would have
`
`limited ability to verify the propriety of the jury’s verdict, potentially prejudicing that Court’s
`
`ability to verify that the jury properly considered each type of invalidity ground presented by
`
`Google. Google is entitled to a jury verdict on the different theories of invalidity presented to the
`
`jury. Touchstream’s single, omnibus question on invalidity fails to account for these concerns
`
`and prejudices Google’s ability to distinguish among the theories for further proceedings in this
`
`case and on appeal.
`
`Google further objects to Touchstream’s proposed verdict form because it does not
`
`include an instruction following Question No. 2 to inform the jury that it should stop completing
`
`the verdict form unless it finds at least one claim both infringed and valid. Touchstream’s form
`
`instead invites error by instructing the jury to “proceed directly to Question No. 3,” even though
`
`addressing Question No. 3 and Question No. 4 may be unnecessary.
`
`In addition, Google objects to Touchstream’s phrasing of Question No. 4, which instructs
`
`the jury to reach a willfulness verdict “if there is at least one claim of the Asserted Patents for
`
`which you answered ‘Yes’ in Question 1,” which concerns only infringement. This suggests that
`
`a jury could find invalid claims to be willfully infringed, which is improper as a matter of law. If
`
`there is no claim that is both infringed and valid, then it is unnecessary for the jury to answer
`
`Question No. 4 regarding willfulness. Moreover, in being dependent only on a finding of
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-6 Filed 07/14/23 Page 9 of 9
`
`infringement, Touchstream’s Question No. 4 differs from Touchstream’s Question No. 3, which
`
`is dependent on finding both infringement and no invalidity, and Google thus additionally
`
`objects to the language in Question No. 4 as inconsistent and confusing.
`
`7
`
`