• Save
Formulario para veredicto apple vs samsung
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Formulario para veredicto apple vs samsung

on

  • 10,996 views

Formulario que el jurado del juicio de Apple vs Samsung debía llenar y muestra la complejidad del juicio

Formulario que el jurado del juicio de Apple vs Samsung debía llenar y muestra la complejidad del juicio

Statistics

Views

Total Views
10,996
Views on SlideShare
1,191
Embed Views
9,805

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

43 Embeds 9,805

http://www.celularis.com 7229
http://www.uberbin.net 1075
http://adictionz.blogspot.com 616
http://adictionz.blogspot.mx 302
http://adictionz.blogspot.com.ar 168
http://feeds2.feedburner.com 88
http://adictionz.blogspot.com.es 77
http://semanticweb.collected.info 68
http://aatp93.collected.info 36
http://apps.mercadder.com 29
http://www.alocomunicaciones.com.ve 17
http://adictionz.blogspot.com.br 13
http://darthgeorge.collected.info 12
http://port21.me 9
http://es.sci-tech-watch.com 6
http://www.paraquesirve.com 6
http://adictionz.blogspot.ca 5
http://adictionz.blogspot.hu 4
http://18minutos.net 4
http://adictionz.blogspot.it 4
http://localhost 4
http://adictionz.blogspot.in 3
http://adictionz.blogspot.co.uk 3
http://sphonecrunch.com 3
http://adictionz.blogspot.ro 2
http://adictionz.blogspot.be 2
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 2
http://feeds.feedburner.com 2
http://email.mipunto.com 2
http://adictionz.blogspot.ru 1
http://adictionz.blogspot.fi 1
https://www.google.es 1
http://adictionz.blogspot.com.tr 1
http://adictionz.blogspot.cz 1
http://adictionz.blogspot.pt 1
http://adictionz.blogspot.de 1
https://twitter.com 1
http://feedproxy.google.com 1
http://kz1web.kzgunea.net 1
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1
http://t20lnm01.tema.toyota.com 1
http://www.blogger.com 1
http://www.google.com.mx 1
More...

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Formulario para veredicto apple vs samsung Formulario para veredicto apple vs samsung Document Transcript

  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page1 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION 10 APPLE INC., a California corporation, ) Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK )For the Northern District of California 11 Plaintiff, ) VERDICT FORM v. ) United States District Court 12 ) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ) 13 a Korean corporation; ) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ) 14 a New York corporation; ) SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS ) 15 AMERICA, LLC, ) a Delaware limited liability company, ) 16 ) Defendants. ) 17 ) ) 18 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ) a Korean corporation; ) 19 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ) a New York corporation; ) 20 SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS ) AMERICA, LLC, ) 21 a Delaware limited liability company, ) ) 22 Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, ) v. ) 23 ) APPLE INC., a California corporation, ) 24 ) Counterclaim-Defendant. ) 25 ) 26 We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them 27 under the instructions of this Court as our verdict in this case. 28 1 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page2 of 20 FINDINGS ON APPLE’S CLAIMS 1 APPLE’S UTILITY AND DESIGN PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG 2 1. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence 3 that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 19 of the ’381 4 Patent? 5 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.) 6 Samsung Samsung Samsung 7 Accused Samsung Product Electronics Electronics Telecommunications Co., Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC 8 Captivate (JX 1011) 9 Continuum (JX 1016) Droid Charge (JX 1025) 10 Epic 4G (JX 1012)For the Northern District of California 11 Exhibit 4G (JX 1028) United States District Court 12 Fascinate (JX 1013) Galaxy Ace (JX 1030) 13 Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022) 14 Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007) Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019) 15 Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031) 16 Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032) Galaxy Tab (JX 1036) 17 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037) 18 Gem (JX 1020) Indulge (JX 1026) 19 Infuse 4G (JX 1027) 20 Mesmerize (JX 1015) 21 Nexus S 4G (JX 1023) Replenish (JX 1024) 22 Vibrant (JX 1010) 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page3 of 20 1 2. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or 2 Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 8 of the ’915 Patent? 3 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.) 4 Samsung Samsung Samsung 5 Accused Samsung Product Electronics Electronics Telecommunications Co., Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC 6 Captivate (JX 1011) 7 Continuum (JX 1016) Droid Charge (JX 1025) 8 Epic 4G (JX 1012) 9 Exhibit 4G (JX 1028) 10 Fascinate (JX 1013) Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)For the Northern District of California 11 Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022) United States District Court 12 Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007) Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019) 13 Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031) 14 Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032) Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033) 15 Galaxy Tab (JX 1036) 16 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037) Gem (JX 1020) 17 Indulge (JX 1026) 18 Infuse 4G (JX 1027) 19 Intercept (JX 1009) Mesmerize (JX 1015) 20 Nexus S 4G (JX 1023) 21 Replenish (JX 1024) Transform (JX 1014) 22 Vibrant (JX 1010) 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM View slide
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page4 of 20 1 3. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or 2 Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 50 of the ’163 Patent? 3 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for 4 Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.) 5 Samsung Samsung Samsung Accused Samsung Product Electronics Electronics Telecommunications 6 Co., Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC 7 Captivate (JX 1011) Continuum (JX 1016) 8 Droid Charge (JX 1025) 9 Epic 4G (JX 1012) Exhibit 4G (JX 1028) 10 Fascinate (JX 1013)For the Northern District of California 11 Galaxy Ace (JX 1030) Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022) United States District Court 12 Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007) 13 Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019) Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031) 14 Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032) 15 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033) 16 Galaxy Tab (JX 1036) Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037) 17 Gem (JX 1020) 18 Indulge (JX 1026) Infuse 4G (JX 1027) 19 Intercept (JX 1009) 20 Mesmerize (JX 1015) Nexus S 4G (JX 1023) 21 Replenish (JX 1024) 22 Transform (JX 1014) 23 Vibrant (JX 1010) 24 25 26 27 28 4 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM View slide
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page5 of 20 4. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence 1 that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) took action that it knew or should have known would induce STA or SEA to infringe the ’381, ’915, or ’163 Patents? 2 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for 3 Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.) 4 ‘381 Patent ‘915 Patent ‘163 Patent Accused Samsung Product (Claim 19) (Claim 8) (Claim 50) 5 Captivate (JX 1011) 6 Continuum (JX 1016) Droid Charge (JX 1025) 7 Epic 4G (JX 1012) 8 Exhibit 4G (JX 1028) Fascinate (JX 1013) 9 Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022) 10 Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)For the Northern District of California 11 Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031) Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033) United States District Court 12 Galaxy Tab (JX 1036) 13 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037) Gem (JX 1020) 14 Indulge (JX 1026) 15 Infuse 4G (JX 1027) Intercept (JX 1009) 16 Mesmerize (JX 1015) 17 Nexus S 4G (JX 1023) Replenish (JX 1024) 18 Transform (JX 1014) 19 Vibrant (JX 1010) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page6 of 20 5. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence 1 that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’677 Patent? 2 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for 3 Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.) 4 Samsung Samsung Electronics Co., Telecommunica 5 Accused Samsung Product Ltd. tions America, LLC 6 Fascinate (JX 1013) 7 Galaxy Ace (JX 1030) Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007) 8 Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019) 9 Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031) 10 Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032) Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)For the Northern District of California 11 Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034) United States District Court 12 Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035) Galaxy S Showcase (i500) (JX 1017) 13 Infuse 4G (JX 1027) 14 Mesmerize (JX 1015) Vibrant (JX 1010) 15 16 6. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence 17 that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’087 Patent? 18 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for 19 Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.) 20 Samsung Samsung Electronics Co., Telecommunica Accused Samsung Product 21 Ltd. tions America, LLC 22 Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007) Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019) 23 Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031) 24 Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032) Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034) 25 Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035) 26 Infuse 4G (JX 1027) 27 Vibrant (JX 1010) 28 6 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page7 of 20 7. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence 1 that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’305 Patent? 2 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for 3 Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.) 4 Samsung Samsung Accused Samsung Product Electronics Co., Telecommunications 5 Ltd. America, LLC 6 Captivate (JX 1011) Continuum (JX 1016) 7 Droid Charge (JX 1025) 8 Epic 4G (JX 1012) Fascinate (JX 1013) 9 Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007) 10 Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019) Galaxy S Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)For the Northern District of California 11 Gem (JX 1020) United States District Court 12 Indulge (JX 1026) Infuse 4G (JX 1027) 13 Mesmerize (JX 1015) 14 Vibrant (JX 1010) 15 16 8. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or 17 Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’889 Patent? 18 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.) 19 Samsung Samsung Samsung 20 Accused Samsung Product Electronics Electronics Telecommunications Co., Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC 21 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037) 22 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE) 23 (JX 1038) 24 25 26 27 28 7 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page8 of 20 If you did not answer “Yes” to any of Questions 1 through 8, please skip to Question 11, and do 1 not answer Questions 9 and 10. 2 9. If you found that Samsung Electronics America (SEA) or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) infringed in any of Questions 1 through 8, has Apple proven by a 3 preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) took action that it knew or should have known would induce SEA or STA to infringe the D’677, D’087, 4 D’305, and/or D’889 Patents? 5 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.) 6 D’677 Patent D’087 Patent D’305 Patent D’889 7 Accused Samsung Product Patent 8 Captivate (JX 1011) Continuum (JX 1016) 9 Droid Charge (JX 1025) 10 Epic 4G (JX 1012) Fascinate (JX 1013)For the Northern District of California 11 Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019) United States District Court 12 Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031) 13 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033) 14 Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034) 15 Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035) 16 Galaxy S Showcase (i500) (JX 1017) 17 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037) 18 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE) 19 (JX 1038) Gem (JX 1020) 20 Indulge (JX 1026) 21 Infuse 4G (JX 1027) Mesmerize (JX 1015) 22 Vibrant (JX 1010) 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page9 of 20 10. If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions 1 through 9, and thus found that any 1 Samsung entity has infringed any Apple patent(s), has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Samsung entity’s infringement was willful? 2 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for 3 Samsung).) 4 Samsung Samsung Samsung Apple Utility and Design Electronics Electronics Telecommunications 5 Patents Co., Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC 6 ’381 Patent (Claim 19) ’915 Patent (Claim 8) 7 ’163 Patent (Claim 50) 8 D’677 Patent D’087 Patent 9 D’305 Patent 10 D’889 PatentFor the Northern District of California 11 United States District Court 12 11. Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s asserted utility and/or design patent claims are invalid? 13 ’381 Patent (Claim 19) Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple) 14 ’915 Patent (Claim 8) Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple) 15 ’163 Patent (Claim 50) Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple) 16 D’677 Patent Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple) 17 D’087 Patent Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple) 18 D’305 Patent Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple) 19 D’889 Patent Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page10 of 20 APPLE’S TRADE DRESS CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG 1 Protectability 2 12. Has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s registered iPhone 3 trade dress ’983 is not protectable? 4 Yes (not protectable – for Samsung) _____ No (protectable – for Apple) _________ 5 13. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s unregistered trade 6 dresses are protectable? 7 (Please answer with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung).) 8 Apple Trade Dresses Protectable 9 Unregistered iPhone 3G Trade Dress Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress 10 Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade DressFor the Northern District of California 11 United States District Court 12 Trade Dress Dilution 13 14. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s trade dresses are 14 famous? 15 (Please answer with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung).) 16 Apple Trade Dresses Famous 17 Registered iPhone Trade Dress 18 Unregistered iPhone 3G Trade Dress Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress 19 Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page11 of 20 If you did not find the registered iPhone trade dress protectable and famous, please skip to 1 Question 16, and do not answer Question 15. 2 15. If you found the registered iPhone trade dress protectable and famous, for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung 3 Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the registered iPhone trade dress? 4 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for 5 Samsung).) 6 Samsung Samsung Electronics Co., Telecommunica 7 Accused Samsung Product Ltd. tions America, LLC 8 Captivate (JX 1011) 9 Continuum (JX 1016) Droid Charge (JX 1025) 10 Epic 4G (JX 1012)For the Northern District of California 11 Fascinate (JX 1013) United States District Court 12 Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022) Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007) 13 Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019) 14 Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031) Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032) 15 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033) 16 Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034) 17 Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035) Galaxy S II Showcase (i500) (JX 1017) 18 Infuse 4G (JX 1027) 19 Mesmerize (JX 1015) Vibrant (JX 1010) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page12 of 20 If you did not find the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress protectable and famous, please skip to 1 Question 17, and do not answer Question 16. 2 16. If you found the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress protectable and famous, for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that 3 Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress? 4 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for 5 Samsung).) 6 Samsung Samsung Electronics Co., Telecommunica 7 Accused Samsung Product Ltd. tions America, LLC 8 Captivate (JX 1011) 9 Continuum (JX 1016) Droid Charge (JX 1025) 10 Epic 4G (JX 1012)For the Northern District of California 11 Fascinate (JX 1013) United States District Court 12 Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022) Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007) 13 Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019) 14 Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031) Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032) 15 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033) 16 Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034) 17 Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035) Galaxy S II Showcase (i500) (JX 1017) 18 Infuse 4G (JX 1027) 19 Mesmerize (JX 1015) Vibrant (JX 1010) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page13 of 20 If you did not find the unregistered Combination iPhone trade dress protectable and famous, 1 please skip to Question 18, and do not answer Question 17. 2 17. If you found the unregistered Combination iPhone trade dress protectable and famous, for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence 3 that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the unregistered Combination iPhone trade dress? 4 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for 5 Samsung).) 6 Samsung Samsung Electronics Co., Telecommunica 7 Accused Samsung Product Ltd. tions America, LLC 8 Captivate (JX 1011) 9 Continuum (JX 1016) Droid Charge (JX 1025) 10 Epic 4G (JX 1012)For the Northern District of California 11 Fascinate (JX 1013) United States District Court 12 Galaxy Ace (JX 1030) Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022) 13 Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007) 14 Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019) Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031) 15 Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032) 16 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033) 17 Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034) Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035) 18 Galaxy S II Showcase (i500) (JX 1017) 19 Infuse 4G (JX 1027) Mesmerize (JX 1015) 20 Vibrant (JX 1010) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page14 of 20 If you did not find the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable and famous, please skip 1 to Question 19, and do not answer Question 18. 2 18. If you found the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable and famous, for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that 3 Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade 4 dress? 5 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung).) 6 Samsung Samsung Samsung 7 Accused Samsung Electronics Co., Electronics Telecommunications Product Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC 8 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) 9 (JX 1037) Galaxy Tab 10.1 10 (4G LTE) (JX 1038)For the Northern District of California 11 United States District Court 12 If you did not answer “Yes” to any of Questions 15 through 18, please skip to Question 20, and do not answer Question 19. 13 19. If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions 15 through 18, and thus found that any 14 Samsung entity has diluted any Apple trade dress(es), has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the Samsung entity’s dilution was willful? 15 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for 16 Samsung).) 17 Samsung Samsung Samsung Asserted Trade Dress Electronics Co., Electronics Telecommunications 18 Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC Registered iPhone Trade 19 Dress 20 Unregistered iPhone 3 Trade Dress 21 Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress 22 Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 23 Trade Dress 24 Trade Dress Infringement 25 26 If you did not find the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable, please skip to Question 22, and do not answer Questions 20 and 21. 27 20. If you found the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable, for each of the 28 following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung 14 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page15 of 20 Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung 1 Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress? 2 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for 3 Samsung).) 4 Samsung Samsung Samsung Asserted Trade Dress Electronics Co., Electronics Telecommunications 5 Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC 6 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037) 7 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE) (JX 1038) 8 9 If you did not answer “Yes” to any of Question 20, please skip to Question 22, and do not answer 10 Question 21. 21. If you answered “Yes” to any of Question 20, and thus found that any Samsung entityFor the Northern District of California 11 has infringed Apple’s unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress, has Apple proven by a United States District Court 12 preponderance of the evidence that the Samsung entity’s infringement was willful? 13 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung).) 14 Samsung Samsung Samsung 15 Asserted Trade Dress Electronics Co., Electronics Telecommunications Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC 16 Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress 17 18 DAMAGES TO APPLE FROM SAMSUNG (IF APPLICABLE) 19 22. What is the total dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung on the 20 claims on which you have ruled in favor of Apple? 21 $______________________________________. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page16 of 20 23. For the total dollar amount in your answer to Question 22, please provide the dollar 1 breakdown by product. 2 Accused Samsung Product Amount 3 Captivate (JX 1011) Continuum (JX 1016) 4 Droid Charge (JX 1025) 5 Epic 4G (JX 1012) Exhibit 4G (JX 1028) 6 Fascinate (JX 1013) 7 Galaxy Ace (JX 1030) Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022) 8 Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007) 9 Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019) 10 Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031) Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)For the Northern District of California 11 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033) United States District Court 12 Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034) 13 Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035) Galaxy S Showcase (i500) (JX 1017) 14 Galaxy Tab (JX 1036) 15 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037) 16 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE) (JX 1038) Gem (JX 1020) 17 Indulge (JX 1026) 18 Infuse 4G (JX 1027) Intercept (JX 1009) 19 Mesmerize (JX 1015) 20 Nexus S 4G (JX 1023) 21 Replenish (JX 1024) Transform (JX 1014) 22 Vibrant (JX 1010) 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page17 of 20 SAMSUNG’S UTILITY PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST APPLE 1 24. For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the 2 evidence that Apple has infringed the indicated Samsung utility patent claims? 3 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Samsung), or with an “N” for “no” (for Apple). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.) 4 Equivalents 5 ’460 Patent Doctrine of Claim 1 6 7 8 Infringement ‘460 Patent Claim 1 Literal 9 10For the Northern District of California 11 United States District Court 12 Patent Claim ‘893 10 13 14 Claim 9 Patent ‘711 15 16 Claim 15 17 ‘941 Patent 18 Claim 19 10 20 Claim 21 16 ‘516 Patent 22 Claim 23 15 24 4th Gen. (JX iPhone 3GS iPod Touch iPhone 3G (JX 1053) iPad 2 3G JX 1077) (JX 1054 (JX 1050 1057 and Accused iPhone 4 25 Product (JX1055 and JX and JX and JX Apple 1076) 1056) 1051) 26 27 28 17 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page18 of 20 25. If in response to Question 24 you found that Apple has infringed any Samsung patent(s), 1 has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s infringement was willful? 2 ’516 Patent 3 Claim 15: Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple) 4 Claim 16: Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple) 5 ’941 Patent Claim 10: Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple) 6 Claim 15: Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple) 7 ’711 Patent 8 Claim 9: Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple) 9 ’893 Patent Claim 10: Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple) 10 ’460 PatentFor the Northern District of California 11 Claim 1: Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple) United States District Court 12 13 26. Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that Samsung’s asserted utility patent claims are invalid? 14 ’516 Patent 15 Claim 15: Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung) 16 Claim 16: Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung) 17 ’941 Patent Claim 10: Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung) 18 Claim 15: Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung) 19 ’711 Patent 20 Claim 9: Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung) 21 ’893 Patent Claim 10: Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung) 22 ’460 Patent 23 Claim 1: Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung) 24 25 26 27 28 18 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page19 of 20 DAMAGES TO SAMSUNG FROM APPLE (IF APPLICABLE) 1 27. What is the total dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for 2 Samsung’s utility patent infringement claims on the ’516 and ’941 patents? 3 $______________________________________. 4 5 28. What is the total dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for Samsung’s utility patent infringement claims on the ’711, ’893, and ’460 patents? 6 $______________________________________. 7 8 29. For the total dollar amounts in your answers to Questions 27 and 28, please provide the 9 breakdown by product. 10 Accused Samsung Product Amount iPhone 3G (JX 1053)For the Northern District of California 11 iPhone 3GS (JX 1054 and JX 1076) United States District Court 12 iPhone 4 (JX1055 and JX 1056) iPad 2 3G (JX 1050 and JX 1051) 13 iPod Touch 4th Gen. (JX 1057 and JX 1077) 14 15 BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS AND ANTITRUST 16 30. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung breached its contractual obligations by failing to timely disclose its intellectual property rights 17 (“IPR”) during the creation of the UMTS standard or by failing to license its “declared essential” patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms? 18 Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung) 19 20 31. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung has violated Section 21 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing one or more technology markets related to the UMTS standard? 22 Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung) 23 24 32. If you answered “Yes” to Question 30 or Question 31, what is the dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung for Samsung’s antitrust violation and/or 25 breach of contract? 26 $______________________________________. 27 28 19 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM
  • Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page20 of 20 PATENT EXHAUSTION 1 33. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung is barred by patent 2 exhaustion from enforcing the following Samsung patents against Apple? 3 ’516 Patent Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung) 4 ’941 Patent Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung) 5 6 7 Have the presiding juror sign and date this form. 8 9 Signed:_____________________________________ Date:_______________________________ 10 PRESIDING JURORFor the Northern District of California 11 United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK VERDICT FORM