Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-7 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 65 PageID# 22559
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-7 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 65 PagelD# 22559
`
`EXHIBIT 7
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-7 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 65 PageID# 22560
`
`AIPLA’s Model Patent Jury Instructions
`
`© 1997, 2005, 2008, 2012, 2015–2019 American Intellectual Property Law Association
`
`Disclaimer
`
`The Model Patent Jury Instructions are provided as general assistance for the litigation of patent
`issues. While efforts have been, and will be made, to ensure that the Model Patent Jury
`Instructions accurately reflect existing law, this work is not intended to replace the independent
`research necessary for formulating jury instructions that are best suited to particular facts and
`legal issues. AIPLA does not represent that the information contained in the Model Patent Jury
`Instructions is accurate, complete, or current. The work could contain typographical errors or
`technical inaccuracies, and AIPLA reserves the right to add, change, or delete its contents or any
`part thereof without notice.
`
`
`
`
`2019 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-7 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 65 PageID# 22561
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`Introduction ..............................................................................................................1
`
`Preliminary Jury Instructions ...................................................................................3
`
`1.
`
`The Nature of the Action and the Parties .....................................................3
`
`1.1
`
`1.2
`
`United States Patents........................................................................3
`
`Patent Litigation ...............................................................................4
`
`Contentions of the Parties ............................................................................5
`
`Trial Procedure.............................................................................................6
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Glossary of Patent Terms .........................................................................................7
`
`Glossary of Technical Terms ...................................................................................9
`
`Post-Trial Instructions ..............................................................................................9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Patent Issues ............................................................................9
`
`Claim Construction ......................................................................................9
`
`2.0
`
`2.1
`
`2.2
`
`Claim Construction—Generally ......................................................9
`
`Claim Construction for the Case ....................................................10
`
`Construction of Means-Plus-Function Claims for the Case ..........10
`
`3.
`
`Infringement ...............................................................................................10
`
`3.0
`
`3.1
`
`3.2
`
`3.3
`
`3.4
`
`Infringement—Generally ...............................................................11
`
`Direct Infringement—Knowledge of the Patent and Intent to Infringe
`Are Immaterial ...............................................................................11
`
`Direct Infringement—Literal Infringement ...................................12
`
`Direct Infringement—Joint Infringement ......................................12
`
`Literal Infringement of Means-Plus-Function or Step-Plus-Function
`Claims ............................................................................................13
`
`3.5
`
`Infringement of Dependent Claims ................................................14
`
`2019 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-7 Filed 01/21/22 Page 4 of 65 PageID# 22562
`
`3.6
`
`3.7
`
`3.8
`
`3.9
`
`Infringement of “Comprising of,” “Consisting of,” and “Consisting
`Essentially of” Claims....................................................................15
`
`Direct Infringement—Infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents
`........................................................................................................16
`
`3.7.1 Limitations on the Doctrine of Equivalents—Prosecution History
`Estoppel..............................................................................16
`
`3.7.2 Limitations on the Doctrine of Equivalents—Subject Matter
`Dedicated to the Public ......................................................17
`
`Actively Inducing Patent Infringement ..........................................18
`
`Infringement by Supply of All or a Substantial Portion of the
`Components of a Patented Invention to Another Country (§ 271(f)(1))
`........................................................................................................19
`
`3.10 Contributory Infringement .............................................................19
`
`3.11
`
`Infringement by Supply of Components Especially Made or Adapted
`for Use in the Patented Invention into Another Country (§ 271(f)(2))
`........................................................................................................20
`
`3.12
`
`Infringement by Import, Sale, Offer for Sale or Use of Product Made
`by Patented Process (§ 271(g)) ......................................................21
`
`Summary of Invalidity Defense .................................................................22
`
`Prior Art .....................................................................................................22
`
`5.0
`
`Prior Art Defined ...........................................................................22
`
`5.0.1 Prior Art Defined (pre-AIA) ..............................................22
`
`5.0.2 Prior Art Defined (AIA).....................................................23
`
`Prior Art Considered or Not Considered by the USPTO ...............24
`
`Invalidity of Independent and Dependent Claims .........................25
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................25
`
`5.1
`
`5.2
`
`5.3
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Anticipation................................................................................................25
`
`6.1
`
`Prior Public Knowledge .................................................................27
`
`6.1.1 Prior Public Knowledge (Pre-AIA) ...................................27
`
`2019 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-7 Filed 01/21/22 Page 5 of 65 PageID# 22563
`
`6.1.2 Prior Public Knowledge (AIA) ..........................................27
`
`6.2
`
`Prior Public Use .............................................................................28
`
`6.3
`
`6.4
`
`6.5
`
`6.6
`
`6.7
`
`6.2.1 Prior Public Use (Pre-AIA) ................................................28
`
`6.2.2 Prior Public Use (AIA) ......................................................29
`
`On-Sale Bar ....................................................................................30
`
`Experimental Use ...........................................................................31
`
`Printed Publication .........................................................................31
`
`Prior Invention (Pre-AIA Only) .....................................................32
`
`Prior Patent.....................................................................................34
`
`6.7.1 Prior Patent (Pre-AIA) .......................................................34
`
`6.7.2 Prior Patent (AIA) ..............................................................34
`
`6.8
`
`Prior U.S. Application....................................................................35
`
`6.8.1 Prior U.S. Application (Pre-AIA) ......................................35
`
`6.8.2 Prior U.S. Patent Document (AIA) ....................................35
`
`7.
`
`Obviousness ...............................................................................................36
`
`7.0
`
`7.1
`
`7.2
`
`7.3
`
`7.4
`
`Obviousness—Generally ...............................................................36
`
`The First Factor: Scope and Content of the Prior Art ....................37
`
`The Second Factor: Differences Between the Claimed Invention and
`the Prior Art ...................................................................................37
`
`The Third Factor: Level of Ordinary Skill .....................................39
`
`The Fourth Factor: Other Considerations ......................................40
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Enablement ................................................................................................41
`
`Written-Description Requirement ..............................................................42
`
`10.
`
`Damages .....................................................................................................43
`
`10.0 Damages—Generally .....................................................................43
`
`10.1 Date Damages Begin......................................................................43
`
`2019 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-7 Filed 01/21/22 Page 6 of 65 PageID# 22564
`
`10.1.1 Alternate A—When the Date of the Start of the Damages Period Is
`Stipulated ...........................................................................43
`
`10.1.2 Alternate B—When the Date of the Start of the Damages Period Is
`Disputed .............................................................................44
`
`10.2 Damages—Kinds of Damages That May Be Recovered ...............44
`
`10.2.1 Lost Profits .........................................................................45
`
`10.2.2 Price Erosion ......................................................................48
`
`10.2.3 Cost Escalation...................................................................48
`
`10.2.4 Convoyed Sales ..................................................................48
`
`10.2.5 Reasonable Royalty ...........................................................49
`
`10.3 Doubts Resolved Against Infringer ...............................................54
`
`10.4 Standard-Essential Patents .............................................................54
`
`11. Willful Infringement ..................................................................................54
`
`11.0 Willful Infringement—Generally ..................................................54
`
`11.1 Willful Infringement—Reliance on Legal Opinion .......................55
`
`VI.
`
`Acknowledgments..................................................................................................56
`
`
`
`
`
`2019 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-7 Filed 01/21/22 Page 7 of 65 PageID# 22565
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The 2019 Version
`
`The Patent Litigation Committee of the American Intellectual Property Law Association
`is pleased to provide this update to the AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions (“Instructions”).
`This update accounts for changes to the law since the previous version of the Instructions was
`published in 2018. Certain portions of the Instructions are also clarified to improve readability,
`and ultimately, juror comprehension.
`
`We published the first version of these Instructions in 1997, and previously published
`updated versions in 2005, 2008, 2012, and 2015–2018. As we have done in the past, we formed a
`Subcommittee to review recent case law, and update the Instructions in light of significant,
`precedential changes in patent law over the last year. The Subcommittee also continued its
`efforts to simplify the Instructions and to improve the formatting so that the electronic version of
`the Instructions is easier to navigate. This year, the Subcommittee placed particular emphasis on
`shortening the block citations following many of the instructions. As a result, we have removed
`many citations to cases that merely applied the law established in other cited precedent.
`
`One of the fundamental goals of the Instructions is to provide a neutral set of jury
`instructions that would not be biased in favor of either the patent owner or the accused infringer.
`These Instructions are not intended to address every conceivable issue that might arise in patent
`litigation. Instead, instructions are provided on those issues that typically arise in patent litigation
`and that have clear precedential support. The litigants must tailor these Instructions to the
`specific issues in their particular case and to eliminate superfluous or confusing instructions. It is
`also intended that these Instructions will be used in conjunction with other instructions dealing
`with issues that are not specific to patent law.
`
`[subject matter]
`[the Defendant]
`[the patentee]
`[the Plaintiff]
`[third party]
`[U.S. filing date]
`
`
`[collateral products]
`[effective filing date]
`[full patent number]
`[invention date]
`[published application
`number]
`[published patent
`application]
`[published patent
`document]
`[published document
`number]
`
`2019 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions
`
`1
`
`To further these goals and to enhance the litigants’ ability to customize the Instructions to
`a particular case, these revised Instructions continue the use of bracketed terminology for certain
`consistent terms. This enables the litigants to use the find-and-replace feature of a word
`processing program to insert case-specific facts. Examples of the terms are:
`
`[§ 102(a) (AIA) Cutoff
`Date]
`[§ 102(a) (pre-AIA) Cutoff
`Date]
`[§ 102(b) (pre-AIA) Cutoff
`Date]
`[abbreviated patent
`number]
`[allegedly infringing
`product]
`[anticipating patent
`number]
`[claims in dispute]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-7 Filed 01/21/22 Page 8 of 65 PageID# 22566
`
`In addition to these “find and replace” terms, brackets were also used to indicate where
`various terminology could be used to customize these Instructions to a particular case. For
`example, to take into account the differences between product and method patents, there will be
`Instructions that include “[[product] [method]]” and the like. Users of these Instructions should
`make appropriate changes, for example replacing “system” with “product” or replacing
`“method” with “process.”
`
`To assist judges and counsel, “Practice Notes” are provided throughout these
`Instructions. The Practice Notes are not meant to be statements of law or included in the
`instructions but are there to provide guidance and insight based on the practical experience of
`judges and counsel.
`
`The Subcommittee substantially completed these revisions in the second quarter of 2019.
`The AIPLA Board of Directors approved these Instructions for publication in 2019.
`
`
`October 2019
`William J. Blonigan, Co-Chair, Eric K. Gill, Co-Chair, and Michelle J. Eber, Vice Chair
`Model Patent Jury Instructions Subcommittee
`Patent Litigation Committee
`American Intellectual Property Law Association
`
`2019 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-7 Filed 01/21/22 Page 9 of 65 PageID# 22567
`
`II.
`
`Preliminary Jury Instructions
`Members of the jury:
`
`Now that you have been sworn, I have the following preliminary instructions for your
`guidance on the nature of the case and on your role as jurors.
`
`1.
`
`The Nature of the Action and the Parties
`
`This is a patent case. The patents involved in this case relate to [subject matter]
`technology. [BRIEFLY DESCRIBE TECHNOLOGY INVOLVED].
`
`During the trial, the parties will offer testimony to familiarize you with this technology.
`For your convenience, the parties have also prepared a Glossary of some of the technical terms to
`which they may refer during the trial, which will be distributed to you.
`
`[The Plaintiff] is the owner of a patent, which is identified by the Patent Office number:
`[full patent number] (which may be called “the [abbreviated patent number] patent”);
`[IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL PATENTS]. This patent may also be referred to as “[the Plaintiff]’s
`patent.” [The Defendant] is the other party here.
`
`1.1
`
`United States Patents
`
`Patents are granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (sometimes called
`the “PTO” or “USPTO”). A patent gives the owner the right to exclude others from making,
`using, offering to sell, or selling [[the claimed invention] [a product made by a process according
`to the claimed invention]] within the United States or importing it into the United States. During
`the trial, the parties may offer testimony to familiarize you with how one obtains a patent from
`the PTO, but I will give you a general background here.
`
`To obtain a patent, an application for a patent must be filed with the PTO by an applicant.
`The application includes a specification, which should have a written description of the
`invention, how it works, and how to make and use it so as to enable others skilled in the art to do
`so. The specification concludes with one or more numbered sentences or paragraphs. These are
`called the “claims” of the patent. The purpose of the claims is to particularly point out what the
`applicant regards as the claimed invention and to define the scope of the patent owner’s
`exclusive rights.
`
`After an application for a patent is filed with the PTO, the application is reviewed by a
`trained PTO Patent Examiner. The Patent Examiner reviews (or examines) the patent application
`to determine whether the claims are patentable and whether the specification adequately
`describes the claimed invention. In examining a patent application, the Patent Examiner searches
`records available to the PTO for what is referred to as “prior art,” and he or she also reviews
`prior art submitted by the applicant.
`
`When the parties are done presenting evidence, I will give you more specific instructions
`as to what constitutes prior art in this case. Generally, prior art is previously existing technical
`information and knowledge against which the Patent Examiners determine whether or not the
`
`2019 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-7 Filed 01/21/22 Page 10 of 65 PageID# 22568
`
`claims in the application are patentable.1 The Patent Examiner considers, among other things,
`whether each claim defines an invention that is new, useful, and not obvious in view of this prior
`art. In addition, the Patent Examiner may consider whether the claims are directed to subject
`matter that is not eligible for patenting, such as natural phenomena, laws of nature, and abstract
`ideas. The Patent Examiner also may consider whether the claims are not indefinite and are
`adequately enabled and described by the application’s specification.
`
`Following the prior art search and examination of the application, the Patent Examiner
`advises the applicant in writing what the Patent Examiner has found and whether any claim is
`patentable (in other words, “allowed”). This writing from the Patent Examiner is called an
`“Office Action.” More often than not, the initial Office Action by the Patent Examiner rejects the
`claims. The applicant then responds to the Office Action and sometimes cancels or changes the
`claims or submits new claims or makes arguments against a rejection. This process may go back
`and forth between the Patent Examiner and the applicant for several months or even years until
`the Patent Examiner is satisfied that the application and claims are patentable. Upon payment of
`an issue fee by the applicant, the PTO then “issues” or “grants” a patent with the allowed claims.
`
`The collection of papers generated by the Patent Examiner and the applicant during this
`time of corresponding back and forth is called the “prosecution history.” You may also hear the
`“prosecution history” referred to as the “file history” or the “file wrapper.”
`
`In this case, it is ultimately for you to decide, based on my instructions to you, whether
`[the Defendant] has shown that the patent claims are invalid.
`
`1.2
`
`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] [a product
`made by a claimed process]], as defined by the claims, 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, like this one, to attempt to stop the alleged infringing acts or to
`recover damages, which generally means money paid by the infringer to the patent owner to
`compensate for the harm caused by the infringement. The patent owner must prove infringement
`of the claims 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.
`
`A party accused of infringing a patent may deny infringement and/or prove that the
`asserted claims of the patent are invalid. A patent 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.
`
`I will now briefly explain the parties’ basic contentions in more detail.
`
`
`1 If the litigation involves a patent governed by the America Invent Act (AIA), prior art is art that
`was effectively filed or published before the filing of the application or patent.
`
`2019 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-7 Filed 01/21/22 Page 11 of 65 PageID# 22569
`
`2.
`
`Contentions of the Parties
`
`[The Plaintiff] contends that [the Defendant] imports, makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells a
`[[product] [method]] that infringes [claim(s) in dispute] of the [abbreviated patent number]
`patent. [The Plaintiff] must prove that [the Defendant] infringes one or more claims of the
`[abbreviated patent number] patent by a preponderance of the evidence. That means that [the
`Plaintiff] must show that it is more likely that [the Defendant]’s [allegedly infringing product]
`infringes than it does not infringe.
`
`There are two ways in which a patent claim can be directly infringed.2 First, a claim can
`be literally infringed. Second, a claim can be infringed under what is called the “doctrine of
`equivalents.” To determine infringement, you must compare the accused [[product] [method]]
`with each claim from the [abbreviated patent number] that [the Plaintiff] asserts is infringed. It
`will be my job to tell you what the language of the patent claims means. You must follow my
`instructions as to the meaning of the patent claims. You are not to define the patent claims
`yourselves.
`
`A patent claim is literally infringed only if [the Defendant]’s [[product] [method]]
`includes each and every [[element] [method step]] in that patent claim. If [the Defendant]’s
`[[product] [method]] does not contain one or more [[elements] [method steps]] in that claim, [the
`Defendant] does not literally infringe that claim. You must determine literal infringement with
`respect to each patent claim individually.
`
`A patent claim is infringed under the doctrine of equivalents only if there is an equivalent
`[[component] [part] [method step]] in [the Defendant]’s [[product] [method]] for each [[element]
`[method step]] of the patent claim that is not literally present in [the Defendant]’s [[product]
`[method]]. In other words, [the Plaintiff] must prove that it is more likely than not that [the
`Defendant]’s [[product] [method]] contains the equivalent of each element of the claimed
`invention that is not literally present in the [allegedly infringing product]. An equivalent of an
`element is a [[component] [action]] that is only insubstantially different from the claimed
`element. One way of showing that an element is only insubstantially different is to show that it
`performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially
`the same result as would be achieved by the element that is not literally present in the accused
`[[product] [method]].
`
`[The Defendant] denies that it is infringing the claims of the [abbreviated patent number]
`patent and contends that the [abbreviated patent number] patent is invalid [and/or
`unenforceable].3 [INSERT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTICULAR INVALIDITY
`AND UNENFORCEABILITY DEFENSES BEING ASSERTED].
`
`Invalidity of the asserted patent claim(s) is a defense to infringement. Therefore, even
`though the Patent Examiner has allowed the claims of the [abbreviated patent number] patent,
`you, the jury, must decide whether each claim of the [abbreviated patent number] patent that is
`
`2 This section and below should be modified in accordance with the patent owner’s infringement
`contentions, e.g., where the doctrine of equivalents is not at issue.
`3 This section and below should be modified in accordance with the Defendant’s defenses, e.g.,
`where the Defendant has opted to not allege non-infringement or invalidity.
`
`2019 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-7 Filed 01/21/22 Page 12 of 65 PageID# 22570
`
`challenged by [Defendant] is invalid. [The Defendant] must prove invalidity of each challenged
`claim by clear and convincing evidence in order to overcome the presumption of validity. Clear
`and convincing evidence means that it is highly probable that the fact is true. This standard is
`different from the standard that applies to other issues in this case. I have instructed you that
`other issues, such as infringement, may be found under a lower standard, namely, by a
`preponderance of the evidence. You may think of this “preponderance of the evidence” as
`slightly greater than 50%. This is different from the criminal law standard of “beyond a
`reasonable doubt.” You may think of this “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard as approaching
`certainty, without reasonable doubt. The “clear and convincing” standard is between the two.
`
`Practice Note: All of the following instructions use the phrase “clear and
`convincing” wherever clear and convincing evidence is the standard of proof. To
`help jurors better understand and apply the clear-and-convincing evidentiary
`standard, consider substituting that phrase with language including “highly
`probable” wherever it appears throughout these instructions. For example, the
`statement, “[The Defendant] must prove by clear and convincing evidence that
`each asserted claim is invalid,” in Instruction V.4 (“Summary of Invalidity
`Defense”), could be substituted with, “[The Defendant] must prove that it is
`highly probable that each asserted claim is invalid.” Practitioners and courts need
`to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether, and if so what, substitute language is
`helpful. See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 (1979) (“even if the particular
`standard-of-proof catchwords do not always make a great difference in a
`particular case, adopting a standard of proof is more than an empty semantic
`exercise”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Colorado v.
`New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316 (1984) (explaining that evidence meets the clear-
`and-convincing-evidence standard where the party offering the evidence “could
`place in the ultimate factfinder an abiding conviction that the truth of its factual
`contentions are ‘highly probable’” and that “[t]his would be true, of course, only
`if the material it offered instantly tilted the evidentiary scales in the affirmative
`when weighed against the [opposing] evidence”) (internal citation omitted).
`
`3.
`
`Trial Procedure
`
`We are about to commence the opening statements in the case. Before we do that, I want
`to explain the procedures that we will be following during the trial and the format of the trial.
`This trial, like all jury trials, comes in six phases. We have completed the first phase, which was
`to select you as jurors.
`
`We are now about to begin the second phase, the opening statements. The opening
`statements of the lawyers are statements about what each side expects the evidence to show. The
`opening statements are not evidence for you to consider in your deliberations. You must make
`your decision based on the evidence and not the lawyers’ statements and arguments.
`
`In the third phase, the evidence will be presented to you. Witnesses will take the witness
`stand and documents will be offered and admitted into evidence. [The Plaintiff] goes first in
`calling witnesses to the witness stand. These witnesses will be questioned by [the Plaintiff]’s
`counsel in what is called direct examination. After the direct examination of a witness is
`completed, [the Defendant] has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. After [the Plaintiff]
`
`2019 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-7 Filed 01/21/22 Page 13 of 65 PageID# 22571
`
`has presented its witnesses, [the Defendant] will call its witnesses, who will also be examined
`and cross-examined. The parties may present the testimony of a witness by having the individual
`testify live for you, by reading from their deposition transcript, or by playing a videotape of the
`witness’s deposition testimony. All three are acceptable forms of testimony. A deposition is the
`sworn testimony of a witness taken before trial and is entitled to the same consideration as if the
`witness had testified at trial.
`
`The evidence often is introduced piecemeal, meaning that all the evidence relating to an
`issue may not be presented all at one time but, rather, may be presented at different times during
`the trial. You need to keep an open mind as the evidence comes in. You are to wait until all the
`evidence comes in before you make any decisions. In other words, keep an open mind
`throughout the entire trial.
`
`In the fourth phase, the lawyers will again have an opportunity to talk to you in what is
`called “closing arguments.” As with the opening statements, what the lawyers say in the closing
`arguments is not evidence for you to consider in your deliberations.
`
`In the fifth phase, I will read you the final jury instructions. I will instruct you on the law
`that you must apply in this case. I have already explained to you a little bit about the law. In the
`fifth phase, I will explain the law to you in more detail.
`
`Finally, the sixth phase is the time for you to deliberate and reach a verdict. You will
`evaluate the evidence, discuss the evidence among yourselves, and decide in this case. We both
`have a job to do. I will explain the rules of law that apply to this case, and I will also explain the
`meaning of the patent claim language. You must follow my explanation of the law and the patent
`claim language, even if you do not agree with me. Nothing I say or do during the trial is intended
`to indicate what your verdict should be.
`III.
`Glossary of Patent Terms
`Application—The initial papers filed by the applicant in the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office (also called the “USPTO” or “PTO”).
`
`Claims—The numbered sentences or paragraphs appearing at the end of the patent that define
`the invention. The words of the claims define the scope of the patent owner’s exclusive rights
`during the life of the patent.
`
`[[Cutoff Date (pre-AIA)—The date of invention for pre-AIA §§ 102(a), (e) and (g); the date one
`year before the earliest effectively claimed priority date for pre-AIA § 102(b); or the date one
`year before the filing of the application for pre-AIA § 102(d).]
`
`[Cutoff Date (AIA)—The effective filing date of a claimed invention.]]
`
`Practice Note: To accommodate the changes made by the AIA, the model
`instructions refer to the Cutoff Date for each claimed invention. Under pre-AIA
`law, the Cutoff Date can vary both by claim and by which subsection of pre-AIA
`§ 102 is being considered. For example, the Cutoff Date is the date of invention
`for pre-AIA § 102(a), but it is the date one year prior to the earliest effectively
`
`2019 AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-7 Filed 01/21/22 Page 14 of 65 PageID# 22572
`
`claimed priority date for pre-AIA § 102(b). The AIA expressly defined both
`“effective filing date” and “claimed invention” in AIA § 100(i) and 100(j),
`respectively. Under the AIA, the Cutoff D