throbber
Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 425 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 31362
`Case 6:12—cv—OO855—RWS Document 425 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 6 Page|D #: 31362
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-855-RWS
`LEAD CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§ §
`
`§
`§
`
`§ §
`
`§ §
`
`§
`
`VIRNETX INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`In answering these questions, you are to follow all of the instructions provided by the
`Court in the Court’s jury instructions. Your answers to each question must be unanimous.
`
`As used herein, “ ’135 patent” means U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135; “ ’151 patent” means
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,151; “ ’504 patent” means U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504; “ ’2l1 patent”
`means U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211.
`
`1. Apple does not contest that the Original Version of VPN on Demand feature (iOS 3-6,
`2009—2013) infringed VirnetX’s ’135 & ’151 patents. What sum of money do you find
`from a preponderance of the evidence would fairly and reasonably compensate
`VirnetX for this infringement?
`
`Amount:$
`
`CONTINUE ON TO NEXTPAGE
`
`Page 1 of6
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 425 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 31363
`Case 6:12—cv—OO855—RWS Document 425 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 6 Page|D #: 31363
`
`2. Did VimetX prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s 2013 Version of
`VPN on Demand feature (iOS 7-8, 2013—present) infiinges the following Claims of
`VimetX’s ’l35 & ’l51 patents?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” for each Claim.
`
`’ 135 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 7 qliQ;
`
`Q 5
`
`’l51 Patent
`
`Claim 13
`
`65
`
`#Z_
`
`3. Did VirnetX prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s Original Version
`of the FaceTime System (iOS 4-6 and OS X 10.7-10.8, 2010-2013) infringed the
`following Claims of VirnetX’s ’504 & ’2ll patents?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” for each Claim.
`
`’504 Patent
`
`’2ll Patent
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 2
`Claim 5
`Claim 27
`
`€$
`
`5
`5! 3e 5
`r_\ ‘ f 5
`
`Claim 36
`Claim 47
`Claim 51
`
`>[ g 5
`M g 3
`3 g
`
`CONTINUE ON TO NEXTPAGE
`
`Page 2 of 6
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 425 Filed 02/03/16 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 31364
`Case 6:12—cv—OO855—RWS Document 425 Filed 02/03/16 Page 3 of 6 Page|D #: 31364
`
`4. Did VirnetX prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s 2013 Version of
`the FaceTime System (iOS 7-8 and OS X lO.9—l0.lO, 20l3—present) infringes the
`following Claims of VirnetX’s ’504 & ’2ll patents?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” for each Claim.
`
`’504 Patent
`
`’2ll Patent
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 2
`Claim 5
`Claim 27
`
`5 39;
`g
`g 5
`3 pg;
`5
`
`5
`
`Claim 36
`Claim 47
`Claim 51
`
`g
`
`~
`
`5. Did VirnetX prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s iMessage feature
`infringes the following Claims of VirnetX’s ’504 & ’2ll patents?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” for each Claim.
`
`’504 Patent
`
`’2ll Patent
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 2
`Claim 5
`Claim 27
`
`—
`
`3.
`:
`
`Claim 36
`Claim 47
`Claim 51
`
`\E£ 3
`§
`g 5
`E
`:g 3
`
`CONTINUE ON TO NEXTPAGE
`
`Page 3 of6
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 425 Filed 02/03/16 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 31365
`Case 6:12—cv—OO855—RWS Document 425 Filed 02/03/16 Page 4 of 6 Page|D #: 31365
`
`Answer Question 6 only if you answered “yes” for any of Questions 2, 3, 4, or 5 above.
`Otherwise, do not answer this question.
`
`6. To the extent you found infringement in Questions 2, 3, 4, or 5, What additional sum
`of money over and above what you awarded in response to Question 1, if paid now in
`cash, do you find from a preponderance of the evidence would fairly and reasonably
`compensate VirnetX for this infringement through the time of trial?
`
`Am0unt:$
`
`CONTINUE ON TO NEXTPAGE
`
`Page 4 of 6
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 425 Filed 02/03/16 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 31366
`Case 6:12—cv—OO855—RWS Document 425 Filed 02/03/16 Page 5 of 6 Page|D #: 31366
`
`Answer Question 7 only for those Claims you answered “yes ” in Question 2 above. Otherwise,
`do not answer this question.
`
`7. To the extent you found infiingement of Apple’s 2013 Version of VPN on Demand
`(iOS 7-8, 20l3—present) in Question 2 above, did VimetX prove by clear and
`convincing evidence that Apple’s infringement was willful?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” for each Claim.
`
`’l35 Patent
`
`’l5l Patent
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 7 fl
`
`Claim 13
`
`\ g g g
`
`Answer Question 8 only for those Claims you answered “yes ” in Question 3 above. Otherwise,
`do not answer this question.
`
`8. To the extent you found infringement of Apple’s Original Version of the FaceTime
`system (iOS 4-6 and OS X 10.7-10.8, 2010-2013) in Question 3 above, did VimetX
`prove by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s infringement was willful from
`the prior verdict, November 6, 2012, until April 2013?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “N0” for each Claim.
`
`’504 Patent
`
`’211 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`Claim 5
`Claim 27
`
`Claim 36
`
`Claim 47
`Claim 51
`
`’
`
`CONTINUE ON TO NEXTPAGE
`
`Page 5 of6
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 425 Filed 02/03/16 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 31367
`Case 6:12—cv—00855—RWS Document 425 Filed 02/03/16 Page 6 of 6 Page|D #: 31367
`
`Answer Question 9 only for those Claims you answered “yes ” in Question 4 above. Otherwise,
`do not answer this question.
`
`9. To the extent you found infringement of Apple’s 2013 Version of the FaceTime
`system (iOS 7-8 and OS X 10.9—l0.l0, 20l3—present) in Question 4 above, did
`VirnetX prove by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s infringement was
`willful?
`
`Answer “Yes” or “No” for each Claim.
`
`’504 Patent
`
`’2ll Patent
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 2
`Claim 5
`
`Claim 27
`
`Claim 36
`Claim 47
`Claim 51
`
`~
`
`5
`E
`
`Date:
`
`/Mal
`
`Z0/3’
`
`By: —JU
`
`FOREPERSON
`
`Page 6 of 6

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