Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 369 Filed 09/27/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID Qualcomm s Proposed Verdict Form, Phase 1

Transcription

1 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 369 Filed 09/27/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID Qualcomm s Proposed Verdict Form, Phase 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION PARKERVISION, INC., QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:11-cv-719-J-37-TEM Defendant. JURY VERDICT FORM 1

2 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 369 Filed 09/27/13 Page 2 of 9 PageID Qualcomm s Proposed Verdict Form, Phase 1 We, the jury, unanimously find as follows: 1 I. DIRECT INFRINGEMENT Question 1: Has ParkerVision proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Qualcomm has directly infringed any of the asserted claims? 2 Yes (for ParkerVision) No (for Qualcomm) If you answer Yes to Question 1, proceed to Question 2; if you answer No to Question 1, skip to Question 3. 1 Qualcomm objects to ParkerVision s verdict form. This case involves numerous products based on different integrated circuit dies with different architectures and different component values. ParkerVision s verdict form does not provide the jury enough guidance on the facts the jury needs to find and does not provide a sufficient basis for post-trial review. E.g., SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ( Under the general verdict rule, where one or more of multiple claims is found legally invalid, a reviewing court must reverse and order a new trial if unable to determine whether the invalid theory tainted the verdict. ). An example of a verdict form with similar amounts of detail to the form proposed by Qualcomm was used in the Apple v. Samsung case. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs Co., No LHK, Dkt. No. 1930, Verdict Form (Aug. 24, 2012); see also Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No , Dt. No. 2271, Order re: Damages (Mar. 1, 2013) (order granting damages retrial in part). Qualcomm also objects to the question of willful infringement being asked before the question of damages. 2 As detailed in Qualcomm s motions in limine and Daubert motion, ParkerVision has not preserved the issue of contributory infringement. To the extent ParkerVision is allowed to proceed under any contributory infringement theory, Qualcomm reserves the right to ask a separate question addressing contributory infringement. 2

3 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 369 Filed 09/27/13 Page 3 of 9 PageID Qualcomm s Proposed Verdict Form, Phase 1 Question 2: If you answered Yes to Question 1, place an X in the column and row corresponding to each accused product and asserted claim for which you found direct infringement. Astra Bahama Eagleray GZIF3 Halley Hercules Iceman Iris Libra/Gemini Marimba Merlin Napoleon Odyssey Volans Voltron Ywing Proceed to Question 3. 3

4 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 369 Filed 09/27/13 Page 4 of 9 PageID Qualcomm s Proposed Verdict Form, Phase 1 II. ACTIVE INDUCEMENT Question 3: Has ParkerVision proven that Qualcomm actively induced another person or company to directly infringe any of the asserted claims? Yes (for ParkerVision) No (for Qualcomm) If you answer Yes to Question 3, proceed to Question 4; if you answer No to Question 3, skip to Question 6. 4

5 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 369 Filed 09/27/13 Page 5 of 9 PageID Qualcomm s Proposed Verdict Form, Phase 1 Question 4: If you answered Yes to Question 3, place an X in the column and row corresponding to each accused product and asserted claim for which you found active inducement. Astra Bahama Eagleray GZIF3 Halley Hercules Iceman Iris Libra/Gemini Marimba Merlin Napoleon Odyssey Volans Voltron Ywing Proceed to Question 5. 5

6 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 369 Filed 09/27/13 Page 6 of 9 PageID Qualcomm s Proposed Verdict Form, Phase 1 Question 5: In the corresponding column and row for each claim and accused product for which you found active inducement in Question 4, write the first date for which ParkerVision proved either of the following: (A) Qualcomm knew of the patent claim, knew that the acts, if taken by the third-party, would constitute infringement of that claim, and knew that the claim was valid; or (B) Qualcomm believed there was a high probability that the acts, if taken, would constitute infringement of the claim and that the claim was valid but deliberately avoided confirming those beliefs. Astra Bahama Eagleray GZIF3 Halley Hercules Iceman Iris Libra/Gemini Marimba Merlin Napoleon Odyssey Volans Voltron Ywing

7 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 369 Filed 09/27/13 Page 7 of 9 PageID Qualcomm s Proposed Verdict Form, Phase 1 Proceed to Question 6. III. INVALIDITY Question 6: Do you find that Qualcomm has proven by clear and convincing evidence that any or all of the asserted claims are invalid? Answer Yes or No for each claim. Claim Invalidity Found? 551 Patent, Claim 23 Yes (for Qualcomm) No (for ParkerVision) 551 Patent, Claim 25 Yes (for Qualcomm) No (for ParkerVision) 551 Patent, Claim 161 Yes (for Qualcomm) No (for ParkerVision) 551 Patent, Claim 193 Yes (for Qualcomm) No (for ParkerVision) 551 Patent, Claim 202 Yes (for Qualcomm) No (for ParkerVision) 518 Patent, Claim 1 Yes (for Qualcomm) No (for ParkerVision) 518 Patent, Claim 27 Yes (for Qualcomm) No (for ParkerVision) 518 Patent, Claim 82 Yes (for Qualcomm) No (for ParkerVision) 518 Patent, Claim 90 Yes (for Qualcomm) No (for ParkerVision) 518 Patent, Claim 91 Yes (for Qualcomm) No (for ParkerVision) 371 Patent, Claim 2 Yes (for Qualcomm) No (for ParkerVision) 342 Patent, Claim 18 Yes (for Qualcomm) No (for ParkerVision) 7

8 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 369 Filed 09/27/13 Page 8 of 9 PageID Qualcomm s Proposed Verdict Form, Phase 1 Proceed to the signature page and sign and date your verdict. 8

9 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 369 Filed 09/27/13 Page 9 of 9 PageID Qualcomm s Proposed Verdict Form, Phase 1 Have the jury foreperson sign and date this form. Signed: Jury Foreperson Dated: /HN 9

10 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document Filed 09/27/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION PARKERVISION, INC., QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:11-cv-719-J-37-TEM Defendant. JURY VERDICT FORM 1

11 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document Filed 09/27/13 Page 2 of 10 PageID We, the jury, unanimously find as follows: [This form should be adjusted based on the findings on infringement and invalidity made by the jury in the first phase.] I. DAMAGES A. Damages for Direct Infringement Question 1: What is the total dollar amount of damages that ParkerVision has proven for any direct infringement by Qualcomm? 1 $ Proceed to Question 2. 1 As detailed in Qualcomm s motions in limine, ParkerVision has not preserved the issue of contributory infringement. To the extent ParkerVision is allowed to proceed under any contributory infringement theory, Qualcomm reserves the right to ask a separate question addressing contributory infringement. 2

12 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document Filed 09/27/13 Page 3 of 10 PageID B. Damages for Active Inducement Question 2: What is the total dollar amount of damages that ParkerVision has proven for any active inducement by Qualcomm of another s direct infringement? $ Proceed to Question 3. 3

13 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document Filed 09/27/13 Page 4 of 10 PageID C. Damages by Product Question 3: For any damages found above, provide the dollar breakdown by product. Accused Product Design Damages Amount RGR6240 Astra WCN2243 FTR8700 RTR6275 RTR6236 RTR6237 RTR6280 RTR6285 RTR6285A MXU6219 RGR1000 RGR1100 QTR9215 RTR8700 RTR9605 WCN3660 WCN1312 MDM6200 MDM6600 QSC6155 QSC6165 QSC6175 QSC6185 QSC6195 QSC6295 QSC6695 QTR8200 QTR8201 QTR8215 QTR8600 QTR8600L QTR8601 QTR8615 QTR8615L RTR8201 Bahama Eagleray GZIF3 Halley Hercules Iceman Iris Libra/Gemini ; Marimba ; Marimba ; Marimba ; Marimba ; Marimba ; Marimba ; Marimba ; Marimba ; Marimba ; Marimba ; Marimba ; Marimba 4

14 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document Filed 09/27/13 Page 5 of 10 PageID Accused Product Design Damages Amount RTR8600 RTR8601 RTR8605 QSC1105 Merlin QSC1100 Napoleon QSC1110 Napoleon WTR1605 Odyssey WTR1605L Odyssey QSC6055 QSC6065 QSC6075 QSC6085 MDM6085 QSC6240 ESC6240 MDM6270 ESC6270 QSC6270 WCN1314 Volans RTR6500 Voltron MXC6369 Voltron WCN1320 Ywing Proceed to Question 4. 5

15 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document Filed 09/27/13 Page 6 of 10 PageID II. WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT Question 4: Has ParkerVision proven by clear and convincing evidence that Qualcomm s infringement of any asserted claim was willful? Yes (for ParkerVision) No (for Qualcomm) If you answer Yes to Question 4, proceed to Question 5. If you answer No to Question 4, proceed to the signature page and sign and date your verdict. 6

16 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document Filed 09/27/13 Page 7 of 10 PageID Question 5: If you answered Yes to Question 4, place an X in the column and row corresponding to each accused product and asserted claim for which you found willful infringement. Astra Bahama Eagleray GZIF3 Halley Hercules Iceman Iris Libra/Gemini Marimba Merlin Napoleon Odyssey Volans Voltron Ywing Proceed to Question 6. 7

17 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document Filed 09/27/13 Page 8 of 10 PageID Question 6: In the corresponding column and row for each claim and accused product for which you found willful infringement in Question 5, write the first date on which you find that ParkerVision proved: Qualcomm was aware of ParkerVision s patent; Qualcomm acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions infringed a valid patent, and Qualcomm either knew or should have known of the objectively high likelihood of infringement and validity. Astra Bahama Eagleray GZIF3 Halley Hercules Iceman Iris Libra/Gemini Marimba Merlin Napoleon Odyssey Volans Voltron Ywing

18 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document Filed 09/27/13 Page 9 of 10 PageID Proceed to the signature page and sign and date your verdict. 9

19 Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document Filed 09/27/13 Page 10 of 10 PageID Have the jury foreperson sign and date this form. Signed: Jury Foreperson Dated: /HN 10