Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
1870
ORDER Re: Tentative Verdict Form. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/20/12. (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
APPLE, INC., a California corporation,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
)
a Korean corporation;
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., )
a New York corporation;
)
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
)
AMERICA, LLC,
)
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
)
a Korean corporation;
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., )
a New York corporation;
)
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
)
AMERICA, LLC,
)
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
APPLE, INC., a California corporation,
)
)
Counterclaim-Defendant.
)
)
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them
under the instructions of this Court as our verdict in this case.
28
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
FINDINGS ON APPLE’S CLAIMS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
APPLE’S UTILITY AND DESIGN PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG
1.
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
Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 19 of the ‘381
Patent?
(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.)
Accused Samsung Product
Samsung
Electronics
Co., Ltd.
Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Exhibit 4G (JX 1028)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and LTE)
(JX 1037)
Gem (JX 1020)
Indulge (JX 1026)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Nexus S 4G (JX 1023)
Replenish (JX 1024)
Vibrant (JX 1010)
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.
Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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
Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 8 of the ’915 Patent?
(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.)
Accused Samsung Product
Samsung
Electronics
Co., Ltd.
Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Exhibit 4G (JX 1028)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
JX 1033 (Galaxy S II (T-Mobile))
Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and LTE)
(JX 1037)
Gem (JX 1020)
Indulge (JX 1026)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Intercept (JX 1009)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Nexus S 4G (JX 1023)
Replenish (JX 1024)
Transform (JX 1014)
Vibrant (JX 1010)
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.
Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC
1
2
3
4
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
Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 50 of the ’163
Patent?
(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.)
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Accused Samsung Product
Samsung
Electronics
Co., Ltd.
Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Exhibit 4G (JX 1028)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
JX 1033 (Galaxy S II (T-Mobile))
Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and LTE)
(JX 1037)
Gem (JX 1020)
Indulge (JX 1026)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Intercept (JX 1009)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Nexus S 4G (JX 1023)
Replenish (JX 1024)
Transform (JX 1014)
Vibrant (JX 1010)
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.
Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
4.
For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
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?
(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.)
Accused Samsung Product
‘381 Patent
(Claim 19)
Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Exhibit 4G (JX 1028)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
JX 1033 (Galaxy S II (T-Mobile))
Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and LTE) (JX
1037)
Gem (JX 1020)
Indulge (JX 1026)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Intercept (JX 1009)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Nexus S 4G (JX 1023)
Replenish (JX 1024)
Transform (JX 1014)
Vibrant (JX 1010)
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
‘915 Patent
(Claim 8)
‘163 Patent
(Claim 50)
1
5.
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
Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’677 Patent?
(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.)
3
4
Accused Samsung Product
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
Samsung
Electronics
Co., Ltd.
Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.
Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
Galaxy S Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Vibrant (JX 1010)
15
17
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
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
Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
16
6.
19
20
Accused Samsung Product
21
Samsung
Electronics
Co., Ltd.
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Vibrant (JX 1010)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.
Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC
1
7.
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
Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’305 Patent?
(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.)
3
4
Accused Samsung Product
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
Samsung
Electronics
Co., Ltd.
Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.
Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC
Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
Gem (JX 1020)
Indulge (JX 1026)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Vibrant (JX 1010)
15
17
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
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.)
16
8.
19
20
Accused Samsung Product
21
Samsung
Electronics
Co., Ltd.
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and LTE)
(JX 1037)
22
23
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE) (JX
1038)
24
25
26
27
28
7
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.
Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC
1
If you did not answer “Yes” to any of Questions 1 through 8, please skip to Question 11, and do
not answer Questions 9 and 10.
2
9.
3
4
5
6
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
preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), took action that it
knew or should have known would induce SEA or SEC to infringe the D’677, D’087,
D’305, and/or D’889 Patents?
(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.)
7
Accused Samsung Product
8
D’087 Patent
Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX
1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX
1032)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX
1033)
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch)
(JX 1034)
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX
1035)
Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
(JX 1017)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and
LTE) (JX 1037)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE)
(JX 1038)
Gem (JX 1020)
Indulge (JX 1026)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Vibrant (JX 1010)
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
D’677 Patent
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
D’305 Patent
D’889
Patent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
10. If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions 1 through 9, and thus found that any
Samsung entity has infringed any Apple patent(s), has Apple proven by clear and
convincing evidence that the Samsung entity’s infringement was willful?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)
Apple Utility and Design
Patents
Samsung
Electronics
Co., Ltd.
Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.
Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC
’381 Patent (Claim 19)
’915 Patent (Claim 8)
’163 Patent (Claim 50)
D’677 Patent
D’087 Patent
D’305 Patent
D’889 Patent
11
12
13
11. Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s asserted utility
and/or design patent claims are invalid?
’381 Patent (Claim 19)
Yes ______ (for Samsung)
No ______ (for Apple)
’915 Patent (Claim 8)
Yes ______ (for Samsung)
No ______ (for Apple)
’163 Patent (Claim 50)
Yes ______ (for Samsung)
No ______ (for Apple)
D’677 Patent
Yes ______ (for Samsung)
No ______ (for Apple)
D’087 Patent
Yes ______ (for Samsung)
No ______ (for Apple)
D’305 Patent
Yes ______ (for Samsung)
No ______ (for Apple)
D’889 Patent
Yes ______ (for Samsung)
No ______ (for Apple)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
4
APPLE’S TRADE DRESS CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG
Protectability
12. Has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s registered iPhone
trade dress ’983 is not protectable?
Yes (not protectable – for Samsung) _____
No (protectable – for Apple) _________
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
13. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s unregistered trade
dresses are protectable?
(Please answer with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung).)
Apple Trade Dresses
Unregistered iPhone 3 Trade Dress
Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress
Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress
Protectable
11
12
13
Trade Dress Dilution
14
14. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s trade dresses are
famous?
15
(Please answer with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung).)
16
17
18
19
Apple Trade Dresses
Registered iPhone Trade Dress
Unregistered iPhone 3 Trade Dress
Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress
Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
Famous
1
2
3
4
5
If you did not find the registered iPhone trade dress protectable and famous, please skip to
Question 16, and do not answer Question 15.
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
Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung
Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the registered iPhone trade dress?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Accused Samsung Product
Samsung
Electronics
Co., Ltd.
Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
Galaxy S II Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Vibrant (JX 1010)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.
Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC
1
2
3
4
5
If you did not find the unregistered iPhone 3 trade dress protectable and famous, please skip to
Question 17, and do not answer Question 16.
16. If you found the unregistered iPhone 3 trade dress protectable and famous, 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 Samsung
Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the unregistered iPhone 3 trade dress?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Accused Samsung Product
Samsung
Electronics
Co., Ltd.
Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
Galaxy S II Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Vibrant (JX 1010)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.
Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
If you did not find the unregistered Combination iPhone trade dress protectable and famous,
please skip to Question 18, and do not answer Question 17.
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
that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or
Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the unregistered Combination
iPhone trade dress?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)
Accused Samsung Product
Samsung
Electronics
Co., Ltd.
Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
Galaxy S II Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Vibrant (JX 1010)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.
Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
If you did not find the unregistered iPad/iPad2 trade dress protectable and famous, please skip to
Question 19, and do not answer Question 18.
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
Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung
Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade
dress?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)
Accused Samsung
Product
Samsung
Electronics Co.,
Ltd.
Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.
Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi
and LTE) (JX 1037)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G
LTE) (JX 1038)
11
12
13
If you did not answer “Yes” to any of Questions 15 through 18, please skip to Question 21, and
do not answer Questions 19 and 20.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
4
19. If you found that Samsung Electronics America (SEA) or Samsung Telecommunications
America (STA) infringed in any of Questions 15 through 18, for each of the following
products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung
Electronics Co. (SEC) took action that it knew or should have known would induce SEA
or STA to dilute any of the Apple trade dresses?
(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.)
5
6
7
Accused Samsung
Product
Registered Unregistered Unregistered
iPhone
iPhone 3
Combination
Trade Dress Trade Dress
iPhone
Trade Dress
Captivate (JX 1011)
8
Continuum (JX 1016)
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
Droid Charge (JX
1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
13
15
Galaxy Prevail (JX
1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX
1007)
16
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Galaxy S II (AT&T)
(JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX
1032)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile)
(JX 1033)
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G
Touch) (JX 1034)
Galaxy S II
(Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
Galaxy S II Showcase
(i500) (JX 1017)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi
and LTE) (JX 1037)
25
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G
LTE) (JX 1038)
26
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
27
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
28
15
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
Unregistered
iPad/iPad 2
Trade Dress
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
Vibrant (JX 1010)
20. If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions 15 through 18, and thus found that any
Samsung entity has diluted any Apple trade dress(es), has Apple proven by clear and
convincing evidence that the Samsung entity’s dilution was willful?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)
Asserted Trade Dress
Samsung
Electronics Co.,
Ltd.
Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.
Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC
Registered iPhone Trade
Dress
Unregistered iPhone 3
Trade Dress
Unregistered Combination
iPhone Trade Dress
Unregistered iPad/iPad 2
Trade Dress
13
14
Trade Dress Infringement
15
If you did not find the unregistered iPad/iPad2 trade dress protectable, please skip to Question
24, and do not answer Questions 21 through 23.
16
19
21. If you found the unregistered iPad/iPad2 trade dress protectable, 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 Samsung
Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the unregistered iPad/iPad2 trade
dress?
20
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)
17
18
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Asserted Trade Dress
Samsung
Electronics Co.,
Ltd.
Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.
Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi
and LTE) (JX 1037)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G
LTE) (JX 1038)
If you did not answer “Yes” to any of Question 21, please skip to Question 24, and do not answer
Questions 22 and 23.
28
16
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
4
22. If you found that Samsung Electronics America (SEA) or Samsung Telecommunications
America (STA) infringed in any of Question 21, for each of the following products, has
Apple proven by a 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
Apple’s unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)
5
6
Unregistered
iPad/iPad 2 Trade
Dress
Accused Samsung Product
7
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and LTE) (JX 1037)
8
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE) (JX 1038)
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
If you did not answer “Yes” to any of Question 21 and 22, please skip to Question 24, and do not
answer Question 23.
23. If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions 21-22, and thus found that any Samsung
entity has infringed Apple’s unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress, has Apple proven by
clear and convincing evidence that the Samsung entity’s infringement was willful?
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)
Asserted Trade Dress
Samsung
Electronics Co.,
Ltd.
Unregistered iPad/iPad 2
Trade Dress
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
Samsung
Electronics
America, Inc.
Samsung
Telecommunications
America, LLC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DAMAGES TO APPLE FROM SAMSUNG (IF APPLICABLE)
24. What is the total dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung on the
claims on which you have ruled in favor of Apple?
$______________________________________.
25. For the total dollar amount in your answer to Question 24, please provide the dollar
breakdown by product.
Accused Samsung Product
Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Exhibit 4G (JX 1028)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
Galaxy S Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
19
Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
20
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and LTE) (JX 1037)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE) (JX 1038)
Gem (JX 1020)
Indulge (JX 1026)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Intercept (JX 1009)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Nexus S 4G (JX 1023)
Replenish (JX 1024)
Transform (JX 1014)
Vibrant (JX 1010)
28
18
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
Amount
8
9
12
13
14
‘941 Patent
11
21
22
Claim
1
Claim
16
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
iPad2 3G
(JX 1050
and JX
1051)
iPod Touch
4th Gen. (JX
1057 and JX
1077)
20
iPhone 4
(JX1055 and
JX 1056)
19
iPhone 3GS
(JX 1054
and JX
1076)
18
iPhone 3G
(JX 1053)
17
Claim
15
16
‘516 Patent
15
Accused
Apple
Product
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Claim
10
7
Claim
9
6
Claim
15
5
Claim
10
4
(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. )
‘460
Patent
3
26. For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that Apple infringed the indicated Samsung utility patent claims?
‘893
Patent
2
SAMSUNG’S UTILITY PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST APPLE
‘711
Patent
1
1
2
3
4
27. If in response to Question No. 26 you found that Apple has infringed any Samsung
patent(s), has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s
infringement was willful?
‘516 Patent
Claim 15:
Claim 16:
Yes ______ (for Samsung)
Yes ______ (for Samsung)
No ______ (for Apple)
No ______ (for Apple)
‘914 Patent
Claim 10:
Claim 15:
Yes ______ (for Samsung)
Yes ______ (for Samsung)
No ______ (for Apple)
No ______ (for Apple)
‘711 Patent
Claim 9:
Yes ______ (for Samsung)
No ______ (for Apple)
‘893 Patent
Claim 10:
Yes ______ (for Samsung)
No ______ (for Apple)
‘460 Patent
Claim 1:
Yes ______ (for Samsung)
No ______ (for Apple)
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
28. Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that Samsung’s asserted utility
patent claims are invalid?
‘516 Patent
Claim 15:
Claim 16:
Yes ______ (for Apple)
Yes ______ (for Apple)
No ______ (for Samsung)
No ______ (for Samsung)
‘914 Patent
Claim 10:
Claim 15:
Yes ______ (for Apple)
Yes ______ (for Apple)
No ______ (for Samsung)
No ______ (for Samsung)
‘711 Patent
Claim 9:
Yes ______ (for Apple)
No ______ (for Samsung)
‘893 Patent
Claim 10:
Yes ______ (for Apple)
No ______ (for Samsung)
‘460 Patent
Claim 1:
Yes ______ (for Apple)
No ______ (for Samsung)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
DAMAGES TO SAMSUNG FROM APPLE (IF APPLICABLE)
29. What is the total dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for
Apple’s utility patent infringement claims on the ‘516 and ‘941 patents?
$______________________________________.
4
5
30. What is the total dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for
Apple’s utility patent infringement claims on the ‘711, ‘893, and ‘460 patents?
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
$______________________________________.
31. For the total dollar amounts in your answers to Question Nos. 29 and 30, please provide
the breakdown by product.
Accused Samsung Product
iPhone 3G (JX 1053)
iPhone 3GS (JX 1054 and JX 1076)
iPhone 4 (JX1055 and JX 1056)
iPad2 3G (JX 1050 and JX 1051)
iPod Touch 4th Gen. (JX 1057 and JX 1077)
Amount
14
15
BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS AND ANTITRUST
16
32. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung breached its
contractual obligations by failing to timely disclose its intellectual property rights
(“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?
17
18
19
20
21
Yes ______ (for Apple)
No ______ (for Samsung)
33. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung has violated Section
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
25
34. If you answered “Yes” to Question No. 32 or Question No. 33, what is the dollar amount
that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung for Samsung’s antitrust violation and/or
breach of contract?
26
$______________________________________.
27
28
21
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
4
PATENT EXHAUSTION
35. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung is barred by patent
exhaustion from enforcing the following Samsung patents against Apple?
’516 Patent
Yes ______ (for Apple)
No ______ (for Samsung)
’914 Patent
Yes ______ (for Apple)
No ______ (for Samsung)
5
6
WAIVER
7
36. Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that Samsung has waived its rights
to enforce the following Samsung patents against Apple?
8
’516 Patent
Yes ______ (for Apple)
No ______ (for Samsung)
’914 Patent
Yes ______ (for Apple)
No ______ (for Samsung)
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
Have the presiding juror sign and date this form.
13
14
Signed:_____________________________________ Date:_______________________________
15
PRESIDING JUROR
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
TENTATIVE VERDICT FORM
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?