`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-JLH
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Instructions: When answering the following questions and completing this Verdict
`
`Form, please follow the directions provided and follow the Jury Instructions that you have been
`
`given. Your answer to each question must be unanimous. Some of the questions contain legal
`
`terms that are defined and explained 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:
`
`1. “Arendi” refers to Plaintiff Arendi S.A.R.L.;
`
`2. “Google” refers to Defendant Google LLC;
`
`3. The “’843 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843.
`
`4. “Accused Products” refers to
`
`a. Google’s Pixel 2, Pixel 2 XL, Pixel 3, and Pixel 3 XL Smartphones
`
`b. Google Docs, Google Sheets, Google Slides, Google Chrome, Gmail, Inbox
`
`by Gmail, Google Tasks, Google Keep, Google Calendar, Google
`
`Messages, Google Hangouts, Google Contacts
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 500 Filed 04/28/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 51406
`
`QUESTION 1:
`
`
`
`Did Arendi prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the Accused Products infringe
`
`any of the following claims of the ’843 Patent?
`
`“Yes” is a finding for Arendi.
`
`
`
`“No” is a finding for Google.
`
`
`
`Claim 23
`
`Claim 30
`
`
`
`
`
`QUESTION 2:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Did Arendi prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Google induced infringement of any of
`
`the following claims of the ’843 Patent?
`
`“Yes” is a finding for Arendi.
`
`“No” is a finding for Google.
`
`
`
`Claim 23
`
`Claim 30
`
`
`
`
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 500 Filed 04/28/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 51407
`
`QUESTION 3:
`
`
`
`Did Arendi prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Google contributed to infringement of
`
`any of the following claims of the ’843 Patent?
`
`“Yes” is a finding for Arendi.
`
`
`
`“No” is a finding for Google.
`
`
`
`Claim 23
`
`Claim 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`QUESTION 4:
`
`
`
`
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Did Arendi prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Google’s infringement of any of the
`
`claims of the ’843 Patent was willful?
`
`“Yes” is a finding for Arendi.
`
`“No” is a finding for Google.
`
`Yes: _________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No: _________________
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 500 Filed 04/28/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 51408
`
`QUESTION 5:
`
`
`
`Did Google prove by clear and convincing evidence any of the following claims of the ’843 Patent
`
`are invalid?
`
`“Yes” is a finding for Google.
`
`
`
`“No” is a finding for Arendi.
`
`
`
`Claim 23
`
`Claim 30
`
`
`
`
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 500 Filed 04/28/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 51409
`
`Instructions: Only answer Question 6 if you:
`
` Answered “Yes” for any of the claims in Question 1, 2 or 3; and
`
` Answered “No” for one or more of those same claims in Question 5.
`
`
`
`QUESTION 6:
`
`
`
`What sum of money has Arendi proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to as
`
`a reasonable royalty for Google’s infringement of the ’843 Patent?
`
`Answer: $ _________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 500 Filed 04/28/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 51410
`
`
`
`You have now reached the end of the verdict form and you should review it to ensure that
`
`it entirely reflects your unanimous determinations. The Foreperson should then sign the verdict
`
`form in the space below and notify the Court Security Officer that you have reached a verdict. The
`
`Foreperson should retain possession of the verdict form and bring it to the courtroom with the jury.
`
`
`
`Signed: ____________________________________
`
`
`
`Dated: ___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
