Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 1 of 42
`
`CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`BY: ________________________________
`
`FILED
`
`DEPUTY
`
`June 14, 2024
`
`Jennifer Clark
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 2 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 2 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTIONNO. 1: JURY CHARGE
`
`MEMBERSOF THE JURY:
`
`It is my duty and responsibility to instruct you on the law youare to apply in this case.
`The law contained in these instructionsis the only law you mayfollow.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 oughtto be.
`
`Eachofyouis going to have your own printed copy ofthesefinal jury instructions that
`I am giving you now,so there is really no need for you to take notes unless you want
`to.
`
`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 duringthetrial that I have
`an opinion aboutthe facts of this case, you mustdisregard that impression. You are the
`sole judges ofthe facts of this case. Other than myinstructions to you on the law, you
`should disregard anything I may have said or done during thetrial in arriving at your
`verdict.
`
`You should considerall 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.
`
`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 argumentsin light of the evidence that has been admitted and
`determine whetherthe evidence admittedin this trial supports the arguments. You must
`determinethe 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
`AlmondNet or Amazonin arriving at your verdict.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 3 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 3 of 42
`
`After the remainder of these instructions, you will hear closing arguments from the
`attorneys. Statements and arguments ofthe attorneys, I remind you, are not evidence,
`and they are not instructions on the law. They are intended only to assist the jury in
`understanding the evidence and the parties' contentions.
`
`A verdict form has been prepared for you. Youare to take this verdict form with you
`to the jury room; and when you have reached a unanimousdecision or agreementas to
`the verdict, you are to have your forepersonfill in the blanks in the verdict form, date
`it, and sign it. Answer each question in the verdict form from the facts as you find them
`to be. Do not decide who you think should win the case and then answerthe questions
`to reach thatresult.
`
`Again, your answers and yourverdict must be unanimous.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 4 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 4 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 1: SUMMARYOF PATENT ISSUES
`
`I will now summarize the issues that you must decide and for which I will provide
`instructions to guide your deliberations. You must decide the following four main
`issues:
`
`1.|Whether AlmondNet has proven that Amazon infringed claim 37 of the
`°139 patent, or claim 24 of the ’639 patent;
`
`2. Whether Amazon has proven anypatent claim is invalid; and
`
`3.
`
`If any claim or claims of any patent are infringed and not invalid, what
`amount of damages AlmondNethas proven.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 5 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 5 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO.2: EVIDENCE
`
`The evidence you are to consider 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 circumstancesthat have been proven. Nothingelse 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 nodistinction between
`direct and circumstantial evidence, but simply requires that you determine the facts
`from all the evidence that you hear in this case, whether direct, circumstantial, or any
`combination.
`
`AsI instructed you before the trial began, in judging the facts, you must considerall
`the evidence, both direct and circumstantial. That does not mean you haveto believe
`all of the evidence.It is entirely up to you to give the evidence youreceivein 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 muchof any witness’s testimony you chooseto accept
`orreject.
`
`You should never be influenced by my ruling on any objection. If I sustained an
`objection, then just pretend the question was never asked.Ifthere was an answergiven,
`ignore it. If I overruled the objection, act like the objection was never made.If I gave
`you instructions that some item of evidence was received for a limited purpose, you
`must follow my instruction. If I gave any limiting instruction during trial, you must
`follow it. Any testimonyI tell you to exclude or disregard is not evidence and may not
`be considered.
`
`You must not conduct any independentresearch or investigation. You must make your
`decision based only on the evidence here, and nothingelse.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 6 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 6 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTIONNO. 3: WITNESSES
`
`You alone are to determine the questionsofcredibility or truthfulness ofthe witnesses.
`In weighing the testimony of the witnesses, you may consider the witness’s manner
`and demeanoron the witness stand, any feelingsor 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 on the witness stand? You mustgive the
`testimony of each witness the credibility that you think it deserves.
`
`In determining the weight to give to the testimony of a witness, consider whether there
`was evidence at some other time the witness said or did something or failed to say or
`do something, that was different from the testimony given by that witnessattrial.
`
`A simple mistake by a witness does not necessarily mean that the witness did nottell
`the truth as he or she remembers it. We are people. People may forget some things or
`remember other things inaccurately. If a witness made a misstatement, consider
`whether that misstatement was an intentional falsehood or just a mistake. The
`significance of that may depend on whetherit has to do with an important fact or with
`only an unimportantdetail. That beingsaid,it is exclusively in your provinceto believe
`every word that any witnesssays, or to disregard anything they say or do, because you
`all are the exclusive judges ofthe facts in this case.
`
`Youare not to decide this case by counting the number of witnesses whohavetestified
`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 numberofwitnessestestified to the contrary, ifafter considering all ofthe other
`evidence, you believe that witness.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 7 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 7 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 4: DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
`
`Certain testimony has been presented to you through a deposition. A deposition is the
`swom, recorded answers to questions a witness was asked in advance ofthetrial.
`Under somecircumstances, 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 shown to you by video. This
`deposition testimonyis entitled to the same consideration and weighed and otherwise
`considered by you in the same wayasif the witness had been present and hadtestified
`from the witness stand in court.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 8 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 8 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 5: EXPERT TESTIMONY
`
`Expert testimony is testimony from a person whohasaspecial skill or knowledge in
`somescience, profession, or business. This skill or knowledge is not commonto the
`average person but has been acquired by the expert
`through special study or
`experience.
`
`In weighing expert testimony, you may consider the expert’s qualifications,the reasons
`for the expert’s opinions, and the reliability of the information supporting the expert’s
`opinions, as well as the factors I have previously mentioned for weighing testimony of
`any other witness.
`
`Expert testimony should receive whatever weight and credit you think appropriate,
`given all the other evidence in the case. You are not required to accept the opinion of
`any expert, rather, you are free to accept orreject the testimony of experts, just as with
`any other witness.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 9 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 9 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 6: NO INFERENCE FROM FILING SUIT
`
`The fact that AlmondNetbrought a lawsuit and is in court seeking damagescreates no
`inference that AlmondNetis entitled to ajudgment. Anyone may makea claim andfile
`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.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 10 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 10 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 7: STIPULATIONS OF FACT
`
`A “stipulation” is an agreement. When there is no dispute about certain facts, the
`parties may agree or “stipulate” to those facts. You must accept a stipulated fact as
`evidence andtreat that fact as having been proven herein court.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 11 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 11 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTIONNO.8: LIMITING INSTRUCTION
`
`Whentestimony or an exhibit is admitted for a limited purpose, you may considerthat
`testimonyor exhibit only for the specific limited purpose for which it was admitted.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 12 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 12 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 9: DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`Certain materials shown to you, such as PowerPoint presentations, posters, or models,
`are illustrations of the evidence, but are not themselves evidence. It is a party’s
`description, picture, or model used to describe something involvedin this trial. If your
`recollection of the evidence differs from the materials you saw, rely on your
`recollection.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 13 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 13 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTIONNO.10: BIAS - CORPORATE PARTY INVOLVED
`
`in your deliberations. A
`Do not let bias, prejudice, or sympathy play any part
`corporation and all other persons are equal before the law and mustbe treated as equals
`in a court ofjustice.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 14 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 14 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTIONNO. 11: BURDEN OF PROOF GENERALLY
`
`In any legal action, facts must be proved by a required amount of evidence knownas
`the “burden of proof.” The burden of proof in this case is on AlmondNet for some
`issues and on Amazon for other issues. There are two burdensof proof that you will
`apply in this case. One is the preponderanceof the evidence, and the otheris clear and
`convincing evidence.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 15 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 15 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 12: PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
`
`in this case is known as the
`The burden of proof applicable to AlmondNet
`preponderance of evidence. AlmondNet has the burden of proving its patent
`infringement case by a preponderanceofthe evidence. AlmondNetalso has the burden
`of proving damages for any alleged patent infringement by a preponderance ofthe
`evidence.
`
`A preponderanceof the evidence meansto prove something is morelikely so than not
`so. For example, evidence that persuades you that a claim is morelikely true than not
`true. You maythink of this preponderance of the evidenceas slightly greater than 50
`percent.
`
`If you find that AlmondNethas failed to prove any elementof a specific claim by a
`preponderanceofthe evidence, then it may not recover on that specific claim.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 16 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 16 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTIONNO. 13: CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
`
`Amazonhas the burden ofproving patent invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`Clear and convincing evidence means evidence that produces in your mind a firm
`belief or conviction as to the matter at issue. It is evidence so clear, direct, weighty,
`and convincing as to enable you to cometo a clear conviction without hesitancy.
`
`This is different from the criminal law standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Ona
`scale of the various standards of proof, as you move from preponderance of the
`evidence, where the proof only need to be sufficient to tip the scales in favor of the
`party provingthe fact, to the other end, beyond a reasonable doubt, wherethe fact must
`be proven to a very high degree ofcertainty, you may think ofthe clear and convincing
`evidence standard as being between those twostandards.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 17 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 17 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 14: SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS
`
`I will first give you a summary of each side’s
`As I did at the start of the case,
`contentionsin this case. I will then provide you with detailed instructions on what each
`side must prove to win on eachofits contentions.
`
`AsI previously told you, AlmondNetfiled suit in this court seeking money damages
`from Amazonforallegedly infringing the Asserted Patents by making, using, selling,
`and/or offering for sale within the United States products that AlmondNet argues are
`covered by claim 37 of the °139 patent, and claim 24 of the ’639 patent. These are
`known as the “Asserted Claims.”
`
`The products that are alleged to infringe are two advertising services made, used,
`offered for sale, or sold by Amazon—Amazon DemandSide Platform and Sponsored
`Display. These maybe referred to as the “Accused Products.”
`
`Amazondeniesthat it has infringed any of the Asserted Claims ofthe Asserted Patents
`and that AlmondNetis entitled to any damages. Amazon also contends that the
`Asserted Claims are invalid because they are obvious in light of the prior art.
`AlmondNetdenies that the asserted claimsare invalid.
`
`Yourjob is to decide whether or not Amazonhas infringed any Asserted Claims, and
`whetheror not those claims are invalid. If you decide that any Asserted Claims both
`have been infringed and are valid, you will then need to decide any money damagesto
`be awarded to AlmondNet to compensateit for the infringement.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 18 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 18 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 15: PATENT CLAIMS
`
`Before you can decide many ofthe 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
`define a patent owner’s rights under the law. The claims are important becauseitis
`the words of the claims 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. Therefore, what a patent covers depends, in turn, on whateachofits claims
`covers.
`
`To know what a claim covers, a claim sets forth—in words—aset of requirements. A
`claim may be narroweror broader than another claim by setting forth more or fewer
`requirements. Each claim sets forth its requirements in a single sentence. The
`requirements of a claim are often referred to as “claim elements” or “claim
`limitations.” The coverage ofa patent is assessed claim by claim. Whena thing (such
`as a product or a process) meetsall 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 product or process where each of the claim elements or
`limitations is present in that product or process. If a system or method is missing even
`one limitation or element of a claim, the system or methodis not covered bythat claim.
`
`The steps of a process covered by a claim do not need to be performedin any particular
`sequence.In other words, even thoughthesteps are listed one by onein a patent claim,
`you should ignore that apparent sequencing in evaluating AlmondNet’s arguments that
`those claimsare infringed and Amazon’s argumentsthat the claimsare invalid.
`
`Youwill first need to understand what each claim covers in order to decide whether or
`not there is infringementof the claim and to decide whetheror not the claim is invalid.
`Thefirst step is to understand the meaning of the words usedin the patent claim.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 19 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 19 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 16: CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`The law saysthat it is my role to define the termsof the claims andit is yourrole to
`apply my definitions of the terms I have construed 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 and I have provided to you my
`definitions of certain claim terms. You must accept my 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 the issues of infringementandvalidity.
`
`The preamble of beginning portion of a claims, also known as the preamble, use the
`word “comprising.” The word “comprising,” when used in the preamble, means
`“including but not limited to” or “containing but not limited to.” A claim that includes
`the word “comprising”is not limited to products having only the elements recited in
`the claim, but also covers products that add additional elements
`
`For example, a claim that covers an invention of a table mayrecite a tabletop, four
`legs, and nails. In this example, the tabletop, four legs, and nails are each separate
`limitations or elementsofthe claim. If such an example claim recited “comprising”in
`its preamble or beginning portion, then a table having a tabletop, four legs, and nails —
`but which also had wheels — would still be covered by the example claim.
`
`For any wordsin the claim for which I have not provided you with a definition, you
`should apply the plain and ordinary meaning of those terms in the field of the patent
`in light of the specification and prosecution history as understood by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`You should not take my definition of the languageofthe claimsas an indicationthat I
`have a view regarding how you should decide the issues that you are being asked to
`decide, such as infringement and invalidity. These issues are yours to decide.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 20 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 20 of 42
`
`Myclaim constructions are as follows:
`
`“second Internet site” / “second,
`different Internet site”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Internet site operated for the benefit of
`
`a different (and not commonly owned)
`entity than an entity for which the first
`Internet site is operated for the benefit
`of”
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 21 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 21 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTIONNO. 17: INFRINGEMENT GENERALLY
`
`I will now instruct you how to decide whether or not AlmondNethas proven that
`Amazonhas infringed the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents. Infringementis
`assessed on a claim-by-claim basis. Therefore, there may be infringement as to one
`claim but no infringementas to another.
`
`A patent ownerhas the right to prevent others from using the invention covered by
`his or her patent claims in the United States during the life of the patent. If any
`person makes,uses, sells or offers to sell within the United States what is covered
`by the patent claims without the patent owner's permission, that person is said to
`infringe the patent.
`
`In order to prove infringement, AlmondNet must prove that the requirements for
`infringementare met by a preponderanceofthe evidence,thatis, that it is more likely
`than not that all of the requirements of infringement have been proved.
`
`In reaching your decision on infringement, keep in mind that only the claims of a
`patent can be infringed. You must compare the asserted patent claims, as I have
`defined each of them, to the accused system or process, and determine whether or
`not there is infringement. You should not compare the accused system or process
`with any specific example set out in the patent or with the prior art in reaching your
`decision on the issue of infringement. The only correct comparison is with the
`language ofa claim itself, as I have explained its meaning to you. You must reach
`your decision as to each assertion of infringement based on myinstructions about
`the meaning and scope of the claims, the legal requirements for infringement, and
`the evidence presented to you by the parties.
`
`I will now explain direct infringement, the type of infringementalleged in this case,
`in moredetail.
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 22 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 22 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO.18: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`
`To prove direct infringement of a patent claim, AlmondNet must prove by a
`preponderance of the evidence,i.e., that it is more likely than not, that Amazon
`made,used, sold, offered for sale within, or imported into the United States a product
`or process that meets all of the requirements of a claim and did so without
`AlmondNet’s permission. You must compare the product or process with each and
`every one ofthe requirements ofa claim to determine whetherall ofthe requirements
`of that claim are met. A claim elementis presentif it exists in the accused product
`or was performed by the accused methodas it is described in the claim language. If
`the accused productor process does not contain one or more elements orsteps recited
`in a claim, there is no infringement. For system claims (claim 37 of the ’139 patent
`in this case), a product that sometimes, but not always, infringes a patent claim
`nonetheless infringes.
`
`A party can directly infringe a patent without knowing of the patent or without
`knowing that what the party is doing is patent infringement. Even if the party
`independently creates the accused product or method,it canstill infringe. You must
`determine, separately for each asserted claim, whetherthereis infringement.
`
`You must determine, separately for each asserted claim, whether or not there is
`infringement. For dependent claims, if you find that a claim to which a dependent
`claim refers is not infringed there cannot be infringement of that dependent claim.
`On the other hand, if you find that an independent claim has been infringed, you
`muststill decide, separately, whether the additional requirements of any claimsthat
`depend from the independent claim were met to determine whether the dependent
`claims have also been infringed. Remember, a dependent claim includes all the
`requirements of any of the claims to which it refers plus additional requirements of
`its own.
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 23 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 23 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTIONNO.19: INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE
`OF EQUIVALENTS
`
`If a company makes,uses, sells, or offers to sell within the United States a product
`or method that does notliterally meet all of the elements of a claim and thus does
`not literally infringe that claim, there canstill be direct infringementif that product
`or methodsatisfies the claim elements “under the doctrine of equivalents.”
`
`Under the doctrine of equivalents, a product or method infringes a claim if they
`contain elements thatliterally meet or are equivalent to each and every elementofthe
`claim. You mayfind that an elementis equivalent to an elementof a claim thatis not
`metliterally if a person having ordinary skill in the field of technology ofthe patent
`would have considered the differences between them to be “insubstantial” or would
`have found that the structure: (1) performs substantially the same function and (2)
`worksin substantially the same way (3) to achieve substantially the same result as
`the element of the claim.
`In order to prove infringement by “equivalents,”
`AlmondNet must prove the equivalency of the structure to the claim element by a
`preponderance of the evidence. Thus, each element of a claim must be met by the
`accused product or methodeitherliterally or under the doctrine of equivalents for
`you to find infringement.
`
`23
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 24 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 24 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 20: INVALIDITY GENERALLY
`
`I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in deciding whether or not
`Amazonhas proven that the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid. To
`prove that any claim ofa patentis invalid, Amazon must persuade you byclear and
`convincing evidence, that is, you must be left with a clear conviction that the claim
`is invalid.
`
`An issued United States patent is accorded a presumption of validity based on the
`presumption that the Patent Office acted correctly in issuing the patent. This
`presumption of validity extends to all issued United States patents. In order to
`overcome this presumption, Amazon must establish by clear and convincing
`evidence that the claim is invalid.
`
`The fact that the PTO grants a patent does not necessarily mean that any invention
`claimedin the patent, in fact, deserves the protection of a patent. For example, the
`PTO maynot have had availabletoit all other prior art that will be presented to you.
`In addition, there is the possibility that mistakes were madeor that information was
`overlooked. Examiners have a lot of work to do and no processis perfect. Also,
`unlike a court proceeding, patent prosecution takes place without input from those
`whoare later alleged to infringe the patent.
`
`A person accused ofinfringement hasthe right to argue here in federal court that a
`claimed inventionin the patent is invalid because it does not meet the requirements
`for a patent. Even though one or more Patent Office examiners have allowed the
`asserted claims as valid, it is your job to consider the evidence presented by the
`parties and determine independently whether or not Amazon has proven that the
`patent is invalid.
`
`Evidence of prior art which was not reviewed by the Patent Office may be more
`probative of meeting this standard, than prior art which was reviewed by the patent
`office.
`
`I will now explain to you Amazon’s groundsfor invalidity ofthe asserted claims. In
`making your determination as to invalidity, you should consider each claim
`separately.
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 25 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 25 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO.21: PRIOR ART
`
`In order for someoneto be entitled to a patent, the invention must actually be “new”
`and not obvious over what came before, which is referred to as the priorart. Prior
`art is considered in determining whether the asserted claims are obvious. Prior art
`may include items that were publicly known or that have been used or offered for
`sale, or references, such as publications or patents,
`that disclose the claimed
`invention or elements of the claimed invention.
`
`For the °639 and °139 patents, Amazon contends the followingis priorart:
`
`e The “DoubleClick” System
`
`e The “Engage” System
`
`e
`
`“Advertising on the Internet” by Robbin Zeff and Brad Aronson, which
`you heard referred to as “Zeff 99”
`
`For each prior art reference Amazon contendsfor the ’639 patent, Amazon contends
`that it is prior art because it was patented, described in a printed publication,in public
`use, on sale, invented, or otherwise available to the public before November28, 2000
`(the priority date of the ’639 patent). For each prior art reference Amazon contends
`for the °139 patent, Amazon contends that it is prior art because it was patented,
`described in a printed publication, in public use, on sale, invented, or otherwise
`available to the public before June 16, 2006 (the priority date ofthe ’139 patent).
`
`An invention is known when the information about it was reasonably accessible to
`the public on that date. An invention was publicly used whenit was accessible to the
`public or commercially exploited.
`
`In deciding whether an alleged prior art system (here, DoubleClick and
`Engage) qualifies as prior art, you must keep in mind that the law does not permit a
`party to prove that somethingis prior art using no more than the uncorroborated oral
`testimony of a single witness. A party seeking to prove that a reference qualifies as
`prior art must provide evidence that corroborates oral testimony. Documentary or
`physical evidence that
`is made contemporaneously with the alleged prior art
`provides the mostreliable corroboration for the oral testimony. For example, internal
`or public documents, photographsor videos, source code, publications, and patents
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 26 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 26 of 42
`
`can all serve as corroboration. Corroborating evidence mayalso consist oftestimony
`of another witness, or it may consist of circumstantial evidence independentororal
`testimony. Corroborating evidence may take many forms and must be evaluated
`together in context using a rule of reason analysis, wherbyall pertinent evidenceis
`considered to determine whether the testimonyat issue is credible.
`
`If you find that Amazonhas not corroborated oral testimony regarding prior
`art with other evidence, you are not permitted to find that the uncorroboratedoral
`testimony alone establishes that a reference qualifies as priorart.
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 27 of 42
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 274 Filed 06/14/24 Page 27 of 42
`
`JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 22: OBVIOUSNESS
`
`Amazoncontendsthat the asserted claimsofthe asserted patents are invalid for being
`obvious in view of the prior art. Obviousness is determined on a claim-by-claim
`basis.
`
`Even though an invention may not have bee