Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-7 Filed 07/14/23 Page 1 of 9
`
`Exhibit C-2
`
`
`
`Exhibit C-2
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-7 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
`
`GOOGLE’S FIRST AMENDED PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORM
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-7 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 230-7 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.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-7 Filed 07/14/23 Page 5 of 9
`
`II.
`
`INVALIDITY – ANTICIPATION & OBVIOUSNESS
`
`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 as anticipated or as obvious based
`
`on the prior art?
`
`“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 230-7 Filed 07/14/23 Page 6 of 9
`
`II.
`
`INVALIDITY – LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`
`Directions: Question No. 3
`
`In answering the Questions below, please check “Yes” or “No” for each listed asserted
`claim in the space provided.
`
`Question No. 3: Has Google proven by clear and convincing evidence that the
`
`following asserted claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid for lack of written description?
`
`“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 to Question Nos. 4-5 only if there is at least one claim of the Asserted
`
`Patents for which you answered “Yes” in Question 1, and for the same claim you answered
`
`“No” in both Question No. 2 and Question No. 3. Otherwise, please skip Question Nos. 4-5 and
`
`go directly to the last page to sign the form.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-7 Filed 07/14/23 Page 7 of 9
`
`III. DAMAGES AND WILLFULNESS
`
`Directions: Question Nos. 4-5
`
`Question No. 4: What is the total amount of damages you find for Google’s
`
`infringement of the Asserted Patent(s)?
`
`$________________________
`
`Question No. 5: Do you find that Touchstream has proved, by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence, that Google’s infringement was willful?
`
`Yes_____ / No_____
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-7 Filed 07/14/23 Page 8 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
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 230-7 Filed 07/14/23 Page 9 of 9
`
`Touchstream’s Objections to Google’s First Amended Proposed Verdict Form:
`
`Touchstream objects to Google’s proposed Questions No. 2 and No. 3 as being
`
`prejudicial and unnecessarily complicated. Having two questions on invalidity improperly
`
`suggests invalidity has greater importance than infringement or that more deliberation is
`
`required. Moreover, a single question on the issue of invalidity, like the question on
`
`infringement, is adequate because the Court’s instructions provide guidance on what the jury
`
`must consider in answering it.
`
`Touchstream also objects to Google’s proposed instruction following proposed Question
`
`No. 3 on the same page. This instruction is highly prejudicial, especially given the wording (e.g.,
`
`“only if” and “please skip”), because it improperly suggests a preferred course of action to the
`
`jury. Also, the Court will provide instructions on damages that cover the same information, so it
`
`need not be repeated here.
`
`7
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
