`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`VIRNETX INC. AND
`LEIDOS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-855-RWS
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`APPLE’S WRITTEN OBJECTIONS REGARDING THE VERDICT FORM
`
`Apple submits the following objections to the October 29, 2020 verdict form.
`
`In Question 1, Apple objects to the use of the phrase “expressed as a dollar amount per
`
`infringing device” and would strike “dollar” because it suggests that the royalty rate should be at
`
`least a dollar. Apple’s position, however, is that the per-unit royalty rate would be no more than
`
`19 cents, 10/27/2020 AM Tr. 331:22-332:1, and both parties have presented evidence of other per-
`
`unit royalty rates of less than $1.00. 10/28/2020 PM Tr. 706:1-1610/29/2020 AM Tr. 794:16-19,
`
`809:23-24, 810:12-811:17. In addition, because Question 1 is asking the jury for a royalty rate, the
`
`question should be revised to reference a “royalty rate” instead of a “royalty,” which may lead to
`
`confusion with the second question. Therefore, Apple proposes revising Question 2 to state as
`
`follows:
`
`What royalty rate, expressed as a dollar amount per device, do you find, by a
`preponderance of the evidence, would fairly and reasonably compensate VirnetX
`for Apple’s infringement?
`
`$ [DELETE DOLLAR SIGN] _____________ per device
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 972 Filed 10/30/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 62959
`
`
`
`In Question 2, as explained above, referencing a “per device royalty” and then asking the
`
`jury to provide a “total royalty,” may lead to confusion about the inputs to the calculation.
`
`Therefore, Apple proposes revising Question 2 to state as follows:
`
`VirnetX and Apple have stipulated that the total number of infringing units is
`598,629,580. Multiplying the per-device royalty rate in Question 1 by this total
`number of units, what total royalty do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence,
`would fairly and reasonably compensate VirnetX for Apple’s infringement?
`
`A verdict form including Apple’s proposals is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`$_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 30, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/s/ Leslie M. Schmidt
`Gregory S. Arovas
`greg.arovas@kirkland.com
`Robert A. Appleby
`robert.appleby@kirkland.com
`Jeanne M. Heffernan
`jeanne.heffernan@kirkland.com
`Joseph A. Loy
`joseph.loy@kirkland.com
`Leslie M. Schmidt
`leslie.schmidt@kirkland.com
`David N. Draper
`david.draper@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`
`Akshay S. Deoras
`akshay.deoras@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 972 Filed 10/30/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 62960
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael E. Jones
`Texas Bar No. 10969400
`mikejones@potterminton.com
`POTTER MINTON
`A Professional Corporation
`110 N. College Avenue, Suite 500
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`Telephone: (903) 597-8311
`Facsimile: (903) 593-0846
`
`Attorneys for Apple Inc.
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certified that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
`
`compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a) on October 30, 2020. As such, this document was served
`
`on all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-
`
`5(a)(3)(A).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Leslie M. Schmidt
`Leslie M. Schmidt
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
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
