throbber
Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 1 of 41 PageID #: 52761
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-JLH
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`THE COURT’S PROPOSED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 2 of 41 PageID #: 52762
`
`
`
`1.
`
`GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1.1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Members of the jury, now it is time for me to instruct you about the law that you must
`
`follow in deciding this case. Each of you has been provided a copy of these instructions. You may
`
`read along as I deliver them if you prefer.
`
`I will start by explaining your duties and the general rules that apply in every civil case.
`
`Then I will explain some rules that you must use in evaluating particular testimony and evidence.
`
`Then I will explain the positions of the parties and the law you will apply in this case. And last, I
`
`will explain the rules that you must follow during your deliberations in the jury room and the
`
`possible verdicts that you may return.
`
`Please listen very carefully to everything I say.
`
`You will have a written copy of these instructions with you in the jury room for your
`
`reference during your deliberations. You will also have a verdict form, which will list the questions
`
`that you must answer to decide this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 3 of 41 PageID #: 52763
`
`
`
`1.2
`
`JURORS’ DUTIES
`
`You have two main duties as jurors. The first is to decide what the facts are from the
`
`evidence that you saw and heard in court. Deciding what the facts are is your job, not mine, and
`
`nothing that I have said or done during this trial was meant to influence your decision about the
`
`facts in any way. You are the sole judges of the facts.
`
`Your second duty is to take the law that I give you, apply it to the facts, and decide under
`
`the appropriate burden of proof which party should prevail on any given issue. It is my job to
`
`instruct you about the law, and you are bound by the oath you took at the beginning of the trial to
`
`follow the instructions that I give you, even if you personally disagree with them. This includes
`
`the instructions that I gave you before and during the trial, and these instructions. All of the
`
`instructions are important, and you should consider them together as a whole.
`
`Perform these duties fairly. Do not guess or speculate, and do not let any bias, sympathy,
`
`or prejudice you may feel toward one side or the other influence your decision in any way.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 4 of 41 PageID #: 52764
`
`
`
`1.3
`
`EVIDENCE DEFINED
`
`You must make your decision based only on the evidence that you saw and heard here in
`
`court. Do not let rumors, suspicions, or anything else that you may have seen or heard outside of
`
`court influence your decision in any way. The evidence in this case includes only what the
`
`witnesses said while they were testifying under oath, including deposition transcript testimony that
`
`has been played by video or read to you, the exhibits that I allowed into evidence, matters I have
`
`instructed you to take judicial notice of, and the stipulations to which the lawyers agreed.
`
`Certain models, reproductions, charts, summaries, and graphics have been used to illustrate
`
`certain evidence and testimony from witnesses. Unless I have specifically admitted them into
`
`evidence, these models, reproductions, charts, summaries, and graphics are not themselves
`
`evidence, even if they refer to, identify, or summarize evidence, and you will not have these
`
`demonstratives in the jury room.
`
`Nothing else is evidence. The lawyers’ statements and arguments are not evidence. The
`
`arguments of the lawyers are offered solely as an aid to help you in your determination of the facts.
`
`Their questions and objections are not evidence. My legal rulings are not evidence. You should
`
`not be influenced by a lawyer’s objection or by my ruling on that objection. Any of my comments
`
`and questions are not evidence.
`
`During the trial I may have not let you hear the answers to some of the questions that the
`
`lawyers asked. I also may have ruled that you could not see some of the exhibits that the lawyers
`
`wanted you to see. And, sometimes I may have ordered you to disregard things that you saw or
`
`heard, or that I struck from the record. You must completely ignore all of these things. Do not
`
`speculate about what a witness might have said or what an exhibit might have shown. These things
`
`are not evidence, and you are bound by your oath not to let them influence your decision in any
`
`way. Make your decision based only on the evidence, as I have defined it here, and nothing else.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 5 of 41 PageID #: 52765
`
`
`
`1.4
`
`DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
`
`During the preliminary instructions, I told you about “direct evidence” and “circumstantial
`
`evidence.” I will now remind you what each means.
`
`Direct evidence is simply evidence like the testimony of an eyewitness which, if you
`
`believe it, directly proves a fact. If a witness testified that he saw it raining outside, and you believe
`
`him, that would be direct evidence that it was raining.
`
`Circumstantial evidence is simply a chain of circumstances that indirectly proves a fact. If
`
`someone walked into the courtroom wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water and carrying
`
`a wet umbrella, that would be circumstantial evidence from which you could conclude that it was
`
`raining.
`
`It is your job to decide how much weight to give the direct and circumstantial evidence.
`
`The law makes no distinction between the weight that you should give to either one, nor does it
`
`say that one is any better evidence than the other. You should consider all the evidence, both direct
`
`and circumstantial, and give it whatever weight you believe it deserves.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 6 of 41 PageID #: 52766
`
`
`
`1.5
`
`CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE
`
`You should use your common sense in weighing the evidence. Consider it in light of your
`
`everyday experience with people and events, and give it whatever weight you believe it deserves.
`
`If your experience tells you that certain evidence reasonably leads to a conclusion, you are free to
`
`reach that conclusion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 7 of 41 PageID #: 52767
`
`
`
`1.6
`
`STATEMENTS OF COUNSEL
`
`A further word about statements of counsel and arguments of counsel. The attorneys’
`
`statements and arguments are not evidence. Instead, their statements and arguments are intended
`
`to help you review the evidence presented.
`
`If you remember the evidence differently from the way it was described by the attorneys,
`
`you should rely on your own recollection.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 8 of 41 PageID #: 52768
`
`
`
`1.7
`
`CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
`
`You are the sole judges of each witness’s credibility. You may believe everything a witness
`
`says, or part of it, or none of it. You should consider each witness’s means of knowledge; strength
`
`of memory; opportunity to observe; how reasonable or unreasonable the testimony is; whether it
`
`is consistent or inconsistent; whether it has been contradicted; the witness’s biases, prejudices, or
`
`interests; the witnesses’ manner or demeanor on the witness stand; and all circumstances that,
`
`according to the evidence, could affect the credibility of the testimony.
`
`In determining the weight to give to the testimony of a witness, you should ask yourself
`
`whether there is evidence tending to prove that the witness testified falsely about some important
`
`fact or whether there was evidence that at some other time the witness said or did something, or
`
`failed to say or do something, that was different from the testimony he or she gave at the trial in
`
`person or by deposition testimony played by video or read to you. You have the right to distrust
`
`such witness’s testimony and you may reject all or some of the testimony of that witness or give
`
`it such credibility as you may think it deserves.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 9 of 41 PageID #: 52769
`
`
`
`1.8
`
`EXPERT WITNESSES
`
`Expert testimony is testimony from a person who has a special skill or knowledge in some
`
`science, profession, or business. This skill or knowledge is not common to 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 free to accept or reject the testimony of experts, just as with
`
`any other witness.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 10 of 41 PageID #: 52770
`
`
`
`1.9
`
`DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
`
`During the trial, certain testimony was presented to you by the playing of video excerpts
`
`from a deposition. The deposition testimony may have been edited or cut to exclude irrelevant
`
`testimony as the parties have only a limited amount of time to present you with evidence. You
`
`should not attribute any significance to the fact that the deposition videos may appear to have been
`
`edited.
`
`Deposition testimony is out-of-court testimony given under oath and is entitled to the same
`
`consideration you would give it had the witnesses personally appeared in court.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 11 of 41 PageID #: 52771
`
`
`
`1.10 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`During the course of the trial, you have seen many exhibits. Many of these exhibits were
`
`admitted as evidence. You will have these admitted exhibits in the jury room for your deliberations.
`
`The remainder of the exhibits (including charts, models, reproductions, PowerPoint presentations,
`
`and animations) were offered to help illustrate the testimony of the various witnesses. These
`
`illustrative exhibits, called “demonstrative exhibits,” have not been admitted, are not evidence, and
`
`should not be considered as evidence. Rather, it is the underlying testimony of the witness that you
`
`heard when you saw the demonstrative exhibits that is the evidence in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 12 of 41 PageID #: 52772
`
`
`
`1.11 USE OF NOTES
`
`You may have taken notes during trial to assist your memory. As I instructed you at the
`
`beginning of the case, you should use caution in consulting your notes. There is generally a
`
`tendency I think to attach undue importance to matters which one has written down. Some
`
`testimony which is considered unimportant at the time presented, and thus not written down, takes
`
`on greater importance later in the trial in light of all the evidence presented. Therefore, your notes
`
`are only a tool to aid your own individual memory, and you should not compare notes with other
`
`jurors in determining the content of any testimony or in evaluating the importance of any evidence.
`
`Your notes are not evidence, and are by no means a complete outline of the proceedings or a list
`
`of the highlights of the trial.
`
`Above all, your memory should be the greatest asset when it comes time to deliberate and
`
`render a decision in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 13 of 41 PageID #: 52773
`
`
`
`1.12
`
`BURDENS OF PROOF
`
`In any legal action, facts must be proven by a required standard of evidence, known as the
`
`“burden of proof.” In a patent case such as this, there are two different burdens of proof that are
`
`used. The first is called “preponderance of the evidence.” The second is called “clear and
`
`convincing evidence.” I told you about these two standards of proof during my preliminary
`
`instructions to you and I will now remind you what they mean. Plaintiff Arendi asserts that
`
`Defendant Google infringes the ’843 patent.
`
`Plaintiff Arendi has the burden of proving its infringement claims by a “preponderance of
`
`the evidence.” That means Plaintiff Arendi has to prove to you, in light of all the evidence, that
`
`what it claims is more likely true than not. To say it differently, if you were to put the evidence of
`
`Plaintiff Arendi and the evidence of Defendant on opposite sides of a scale, the evidence
`
`supporting Plaintiff Arendi’s claims would have to make the scales tip slightly on its side in each
`
`instance. If the scale should remain equal or tip in favor of Defendant Google, you must find in
`
`favor of Defendant.
`
`In addition to denying Plaintiff Arendi’s claims that it infringes, Google asserts that the
`
`asserted claims of the ’843 Patent are invalid. A party challenging the validity of a patent—in this
`
`instance, Defendant Google—has the burden to prove that the asserted claims are invalid by clear
`
`and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence means evidence that it is highly probable
`
`that a fact is true. Proof by clear and convincing evidence is a higher burden than proof by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.
`
`You may have heard of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof from criminal
`
`cases. That requirement is the highest burden of proof. It does not apply to civil cases and,
`
`therefore, you should put it out of your mind.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 14 of 41 PageID #: 52774
`
`
`
`2.
`
`THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENTIONS
`
`2.1
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`I will now review for you the parties in this action, and the positions of the parties that you
`
`will have to consider in reaching your verdict.
`
`As I have previously told you, the plaintiff in this case is Arendi S.A.R.L. We have referred
`
`to the plaintiff as Arendi. The defendant in this case is Google LLC. We have referred to it as
`
`Google.
`
`Plaintiff Arendi is the owner of U.S. Patent Number 7,917,843. During this case, we have
`
`referred to the patent by its last three digits, the ’843 Patent, or as the patent-in-suit or the Asserted
`
`Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 15 of 41 PageID #: 52775
`
`
`
`you:
`
`2.2
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES
`
`You must decide the following issues in this case according to the instructions that I give
`
`1.
`
`Whether Plaintiff Arendi has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`Google infringes one or more of claims 23 and 30 of the ’843 Patent;
`
`2.
`
`Whether Defendant Google has proven by clear and convincing evidence that one
`
`or more of the asserted claims of the ’843 Patent is invalid.
`
`3.
`
`If you decide that any claim of the ’843 Patent has been infringed by Google and is
`
`not invalid, you will then need to decide whether Arendi has proven by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that Google’s infringement was willful;
`
`4.
`
`If you decide that any claim of the ’843 Patent has been infringed by Google and is
`
`not invalid, you will also need to decide the amount of money damages Arendi has proven by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence are to be awarded to compensate it for Google’s infringement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 16 of 41 PageID #: 52776
`
`
`
`3.
`
`THE PATENT LAWS
`
`3.1
`
`THE PATENT LAWS
`
`At the beginning of the trial, I gave you some general information about patents and the
`
`patent system and a brief overview of the patent laws relevant to this case. I will now give you
`
`more detailed instructions about the patent laws that specifically relate to this case. If you would
`
`like to review my instructions at any time during your deliberations, you will have your copy
`
`available to you in the jury room.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 17 of 41 PageID #: 52777
`
`
`
`3.2
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Before you can decide many of the 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 a patent. The claims
`
`are important because it is 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 what each of its claims covers.
`
`To know what a claim covers, a claim sets forth, in words, a set of requirements. Each
`
`claim sets forth its requirements in a single sentence. A claim may be narrower or broader than
`
`another claim by setting forth more or fewer requirements. The requirements of a claim are often
`
`referred to as “claim elements” or “claim limitations.” The coverage of a patent is assessed claim-
`
`by-claim.
`
`When a thing (such as a product) meets all 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 where each of the claim elements or limitations is present in that product.
`
`If a product is missing even one limitation or element of a claim, the product is not covered by that
`
`claim.
`
`You will first need to understand what each claim covers in order to decide whether or not
`
`there is infringement of the claim and to decide whether or not the claim is invalid. The first step
`
`is to understand the meaning of the words used in the patent claim.
`
`This case involves two types of patent claims: independent claims and dependent claims.
`
`An “independent claim” sets forth all of the requirements that must be met in order to be
`
`covered by that claim. Thus, it is not necessary to look at any other claim to determine what an
`
`independent claim covers. Claim 23 of the ’843 Patent is an independent claim.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 18 of 41 PageID #: 52778
`
`
`
`In contrast, claim 30 of the ’843 Patent is a “dependent claim.” A dependent claim does
`
`not itself recite all of the requirements of the claim but refers to another claim for some of its
`
`requirements. In this way, the claim “depends” on another claim. A dependent claim incorporates
`
`all of the requirements of the claim(s) to which it refers. The dependent claim then adds its own
`
`additional requirements. Therefore, to determine what a dependent claim covers, it is necessary to
`
`look at both the dependent claim and the other claim or claims to which it refers. A product that
`
`meets all of the requirements of both the dependent claim and the claim(s) to which it refers is
`
`covered by that dependent claim.
`
`It is my job as a judge to define the terms of the claims and to instruct you about the
`
`meaning. It is your role to apply my definitions to the issues that you are asked to decide.
`
`In this case, I have determined the meaning of the following terms of the asserted claims
`
`of the ’843 Patent:
`
`Claim Term
`“document”
`
`“first information”
`
`“computer program”
`
`“to determine if the first
`information is at least one of a
`plurality of types of information that
`can be searched for”
`
`“that allows a user to enter a
`user command to initiate an
`operation”
`“providing an input device
`configured by the first computer
`program”
`
`Court’s Construction
`“a word processing, spreadsheet, or similar file
`into which text can be entered”
`“text in a document that can be used as input
`for a search operation in a source external to the
`document”
`“a self-contained set of instructions, as opposed
`to a routine or library, intended to be executed on a
`computer so as to perform some task”
`“to determine if the first information belongs to
`one or more of several predefined categories of
`identifying information (e.g., a name) or contact
`information (e.g., a phone number, a fax number, or an
`email address) that can be searched for in an
`information source external to the document”
`“that allows a user to enter an input or series of
`inputs to initiate an operation”
`
`“providing an input device set up by the first
`computer program for use by the user”
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 19 of 41 PageID #: 52779
`
`
`
`You must accept my definition of these words 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 infringement
`
`and validity.
`
`The beginning portion of a claim, also known as the preamble, often uses the word
`
`“comprising.” The word “comprising,” when used in the preamble, means “including but not
`
`limited to” or “containing but not limited to.” When “comprising” is used in the preamble, if you
`
`decide that an accused product includes all of the requirements of that claim, the claim is infringed.
`
`This is true even if the accused product contains additional elements.
`
`For any words in the claim for which I have not provided you with a definition, you should
`
`apply their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the field of
`
`technology of the ’843 Patent at the time of the invention. The meanings of the words of the patent
`
`claims must be the same when deciding both the issues of infringement and validity.
`
`You should not take my definition of the language of the claims as an indication that 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 20 of 41 PageID #: 52780
`
`
`
`3.3
`
`INFRINGEMENT—INFRINGEMENT GENERALLY
`
`I will now instruct you as to the rules you must follow when deciding whether Plaintiff
`
`Arendi has proven that Google has infringed the ’843 Patent. A claim covers a product where each
`
`of the claim elements or limitations is present in that product. Infringement is assessed on a claim-
`
`by-claim basis. Therefore, there may be infringement of one claim but no infringement of another.
`
`In order to prove infringement, Arendi must prove that the requirements for infringement
`
`are met by a preponderance of the evidence, that is, that it is more likely than not that all of the
`
`requirements of infringement have been proved.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 21 of 41 PageID #: 52781
`
`
`
`3.4
`
`INFRINGEMENT—DIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`
`A person or business entity that makes, uses, sells, or offers for sale within the United
`
`States or imports into the United States an invention claimed in a patent infringes that patent. There
`
`may be infringement of one claim but no infringement of another.
`
`If you find that an independent claim is not infringed, there cannot be infringement of any
`
`dependent claim that depends from that claim. On the other hand, if you find that an independent
`
`claim has been infringed, you must still separately decide whether the accused products meet the
`
`additional requirements of any dependent claim to determine whether that dependent claim has
`
`also been infringed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 22 of 41 PageID #: 52782
`
`
`
`3.5 WILLFULNESS
`
`Arendi asserts that Google infringed the ’843 Patent, and further, that Google infringed
`
`willfully. If you find that Google infringed one or more claims of the ’843 Patent, then you must
`
`also determine whether or not such infringement was willful.
`
`To show that infringement was willful, Arendi must establish that it is more likely than not
`
`that Google knew of the ’843 Patent at the time of the alleged infringement and also that Google
`
`engaged in deliberate or intentional infringement.
`
`To decide whether Google acted willfully, you should consider all of the facts and assess
`
`Google’s knowledge at the time of the challenged conduct. Facts that may be considered include,
`
`but are not limited to:
`
`1. Whether or not Google acted consistently with the standards of behavior for its
`
`industry;
`
`2. Whether or not Google intentionally copied a product of Arendi that is covered by
`
`the ’843 Patent;
`
`3. Whether or not Google reasonably believed it did not infringe or that the patent was
`
`invalid;
`
`4. Whether or not Google made a good-faith effort to avoid infringing the ’843 Patent
`
`by, for example, attempting to design around the ’843 Patent; and
`
`5. Whether or not Google tried to cover up its infringement.
`
`If you determine that any infringement was willful, you may not allow that decision to
`
`affect the amount of any damages award you give for infringement. I will take willfulness into
`
`account later.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 23 of 41 PageID #: 52783
`
`
`
`4.
`
`INVALIDITY
`
`4.1
`
`INVALIDITY—GENERALLY
`
`I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in deciding whether or not Google has
`
`proven that the Asserted Claims are invalid.
`
`Patent invalidity is a defense to patent infringement. The issuance of a patent by the Patent
`
`Office provides a presumption that the patent is valid.
`
`A party challenging the validity of a patent—in this instance, Google—has the burden to
`
`prove that the asserted claims are invalid by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing
`
`evidence means evidence that it is highly probable that a fact is true. Proof by clear and convincing
`
`evidence is a higher burden than proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`In this case, you have the ultimate responsibility for deciding whether the claims of the
`
`patent are valid or invalid. In making your determination, you must consider the claims
`
`individually, as you did when you considered whether each claim was infringed or not. If clear
`
`and convincing evidence demonstrates that a claim of the ’843 Patent fails to meet any requirement
`
`of the patent laws, then that claim is invalid.
`
`The fact that any particular reference was or was not considered by the Patent Office does
`
`not change Google’s burden of proof.
`
`I will now instruct you on the invalidity issues you should consider.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 24 of 41 PageID #: 52784
`
`
`
`4.2
`
`INVALIDITY—PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The question of invalidity of a patent claim is determined from the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the asserted invention as of the time of invention. In
`
`deciding the level of ordinary skill, you should consider all the evidence introduced at trial,
`
`including:
`
`(1) the levels of education and experience of persons working in the field;
`
`(2) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`(3) prior art solutions to those problems;
`
`(4) rapidity with which innovations are made; and
`
`(5) the sophistication of the technology.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 25 of 41 PageID #: 52785
`
`
`
`4.3
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`In order for someone to be entitled to a patent, the invention must actually be “new” and
`
`not obvious over what came before, which is referred to as the prior art. Prior art is considered in
`
`determining whether the Asserted Claims of the ’843 Patent are anticipated or obvious.
`
`Prior art may include items that were publicly known or that have been used or offered for
`
`sale that disclose the claimed invention or elements of the claimed invention.
`
`Google contends that the following is prior art to the ʼ843 patent:
`
`•
`
`the CyberDesk System
`
`• Apple Data Detectors System; and
`
`• Microsoft Word 97 system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 26 of 41 PageID #: 52786
`
`
`
`
`
`4.4
`
`INVALIDITY—ANTICIPATION
`
`In order for someone to be entitled to a patent, the invention must actually be “new.” If an
`
`invention is not new, it is said to be “anticipated.” Google contends that the asserted claims of the
`
`’843 Patent are invalid because the claimed inventions are anticipated. Google must convince you
`
`of this by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`Specifically, Google contends that the alleged CyberDesk System anticipates the Asserted
`
`Claims of the ’843 Patent.
`
`Anticipation must be determined on a claim-by-claim basis. Google must prove by clear
`
`and convincing evidence that all of the requirements of a claim are present in a single piece of
`
`prior art. To anticipate the invention, the prior art does not have to use the same words as the claim,
`
`but all of the requirements of the claim must have been disclosed and arranged as in the claim. The
`
`claim requirements may either be disclosed expressly or inherently—that is, necessarily implied—
`
`but must be disclosed in sufficient detail that a person having ordinary skill in the art of the
`
`invention, looking at that one reference, could make and use the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 27 of 41 PageID #: 52787
`
`
`
`4.5
`
`INVALIDITY—OBVIOUSNESS
`
`Even though an invention may not have been identically disclosed or described in a single prior
`
`art reference before it was made by an inventor, in order to be patentable, the invention must also
`
`not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of technology of the patent at the
`
`time of the invention.
`
`Google may establish that a patent claim is invalid by proving, by clear and convincing
`
`evidence, that the claimed invention would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in
`
`the art in the field of the invention at the time the invention was made.
`
`In determining whether a claimed invention is obvious, you must consider the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the field of the invention that someone would have had at the time the invention
`
`was made, the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the prior art and the
`
`claimed invention, and, if present, so-called objective evidence or secondary considerations, which
`
`I will describe shortly. Do not use hindsight; consider only what was known at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`Keep in mind that the mere existence of each element of the claimed invention in the prior
`
`art does not necessarily prove obviousness. Most, if not all, inventions rely on building blocks of
`
`prior art. In considering whether a claimed invention is obvious, you should consider whether, at
`
`the time of the claimed invention, there was a reason that would have prompted a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the field of the invention to combine the known elements in the prior art in the
`
`way that the claimed invention does, taking into account such factors as: (1) whether the claimed
`
`invention was merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to their known
`
`function(s); (2) whether the claimed invention provides an obvious solution to a known problem
`
`in the relevant field; (3) whether the prior art teaches or suggests the desirability of combining
`
`elements claimed in the invention; (4) whether the prior art teaches away from combining elements
`
`
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 521 Filed 05/01/23 Page 28 of 41 PageID #: 52788
`
`
`
`in the claimed invention; and (5) whether it would have been obvious to try the combinations of
`
`elements, such as when there is a design incentive or market pressure to solve a problem and there
`
`are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. To find it rendered the claimed invention
`
`obvious, you must find that the prior art provided a reasonable expectation of success. Obvious to
`
`try is not sufficient in unpredictable technologies.
`
`In determining whether the claimed invention is obvious, you should take into account any
`
`objective evidence (sometimes called “secondary considerations”) that may shed light on whether
`
`or not the claimed invention was obvious, such as:
`
`a. Whether the claimed invention satisfied a long-felt need;
`
`b.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket